Further illusions: On key evolutionary mechanisms that could never fit with Modern Synthesis

The Spiral Model of Evolution: Stable Life Forms of Organisms and Unstable Life Forms of Cancers

If one must prioritize among the vast array of contributing factors to cancer evolution, environmental-stress-mediated chromosome instability (CIN) should easily surpass individual gene mutations. CIN leads to the emergence of genomically unstable life forms, enabling them to grow dominantly within the stable life form of the host. In contrast, stochastic gene mutations play a role in aiding the growth of the cancer population, with their importance depending on the initial emergence of the new system. Furthermore, many specific gene mutations among the many available can perform this function, decreasing the clinical value of any specific gene mutation. Since these unstable life forms can respond to treatment differently than stable ones, cancer often escapes from drug treatment by forming new systems, which leads to problems during the treatment for patients. To understand how diverse factors impact CIN-mediated macroevolution and genome integrity-ensured microevolution, the concept of two-phased cancer evolution is used to reconcile some major characteristics of cancer, such as bioenergetic, unicellular, and multicellular evolution. Specifically, the spiral of life function model is proposed, which integrates major historical evolutionary innovations and conservation with information management. Unlike normal organismal evolution in the microevolutionary phase, where a given species occupies a specific location within the spiral, cancer populations are highly heterogenous at multiple levels, including epigenetic levels. Individual cells occupy different levels and positions within the spiral, leading to supersystems of mixed cellular populations that exhibit both macro and microevolution. This analysis, utilizing karyotype to define the genetic networks of the cellular system and CIN to determine the instability of the system, as well as considering gene mutation and epigenetics as modifiers of the system for information amplification and usage, explores the high evolutionary potential of cancer. It provides a new, unified understanding of cancer as a supersystem, encouraging efforts to leverage the dynamics of CIN to develop improved treatment options. Moreover, it offers a historically contingent model for organismal evolution that reconciles the roles of both evolutionary innovation and conservation through macroevolution and microevolution, respectively.

The Importance of Monitoring Non-clonal Chromosome Aberrations (NCCAs) in Cancer Research

Cytogenetic analysis has traditionally focused on the clonal chromosome aberrations, or CCAs, and considered the large number of diverse non-clonal chromosome aberrations, or NCCAs, as insignificant noise. Our decade-long karyotype evolutionary studies have unexpectedly demonstrated otherwise. Not only the baseline of NCCAs is associated with fuzzy inheritance, but the frequencies of NCCAs can also be used to reliably measure genome or chromosome instability (CIN). According to the Genome Architecture Theory, CIN is the common driver of cancer evolution that can unify diverse molecular mechanisms, and genome chaos, including chromothripsis, chromoanagenesis, and polypoidal giant nuclear and micronuclear clusters, and various sizes of chromosome fragmentations, including extrachromosomal DNA, represent some extreme forms of NCCAs that play a key role in the macroevolutionary transition. In this chapter, the rationale, definition, brief history, and current status of NCCA research in cancer are discussed in the context of two-phased cancer evolution and karyotype-coded system information. Finally, after briefly describing various types of NCCAs, we call for more research on NCCAs in future cytogenetics.

The New Era of Cancer Cytogenetics and Cytogenomics

The promises of the cancer genome sequencing project, combined with various -omics technologies, have raised questions about the importance of cancer cytogenetic analyses. It is suggested that DNA sequencing provides high resolution, speed, and automation, potentially replacing cytogenetic testing. We disagree with this reductionist prediction. On the contrary, various sequencing projects have unexpectedly challenged gene theory and highlighted the importance of the genome or karyotype in organizing gene network interactions. Consequently, profiling the karyotype can be more meaningful than solely profiling gene mutations, especially in cancer where karyotype alterations mediate cellular macroevolution dominance. In this chapter, recent studies that illustrate the ultimate importance of karyotype in cancer genomics and evolution are briefly reviewed. In particular, the long-ignored non-clonal chromosome aberrations or NCCAs are linked to genome or chromosome instability, genome chaos is linked to genome reorganization under cellular crisis, and the two-phased cancer evolution reconciles the relationship between genome alteration-mediated punctuated macroevolution and gene mutation-mediated stepwise microevolution. By further synthesizing, the concept of karyotype coding is discussed in the context of information management. Altogether, we call for a new era of cancer cytogenetics and cytogenomics, where an array of technical frontiers can be explored further, which is crucial for both basic research and clinical implications in the cancer field.

Karyotype as code of codes: An inheritance platform to shape the pattern and scale of evolution

Organismal evolution displays complex dynamics in phase and scale which seem to trend towards increasing biocomplexity and diversity. For over a century, such amazing dynamics have been cleverly explained by the apparently straightforward mechanism of natural selection: all diversification, including speciation, results from the gradual accumulation of small beneficial or near-neutral alterations over long timescales. However, although this has been widely accepted, natural selection makes a crucial assumption that has not yet been validated. Specifically, the informational relationship between small microevolutionary alterations and large macroevolutionary changes in natural selection is unclear. To address the macroevolution-microevolution relationship, it is crucial to incorporate the concept of organic codes and particularly the "karyotype code" which defines macroevolutionary changes. This concept piece examines the karyotype from the perspective of two-phased evolution and four key components of information management. It offers insight into how the karyotype creates and preserves information that defines the scale and phase of macroevolution and, by extension, microevolution. We briefly describe the relationship between the karyotype code, the genetic code, and other organic codes in the context of generating evolutionary novelties in macroevolution and imposing constraints on them as biological routines in microevolution. Our analyses suggest that karyotype coding preserves many organic codes by providing system-level inheritance, and similar analyses are needed to classify and prioritize a large number of different organic codes based on the phases and scales of evolution. Finally, the importance of natural information self-creation is briefly discussed, leading to a call to integrate information and time into the relationship between matter and energy.

Genome Chaos, Information Creation, and Cancer Emergence: Searching for New Frameworks on the 50th Anniversary of the "War on Cancer"

The year 2021 marks the 50th anniversary of the National Cancer Act, signed by President Nixon, which declared a national “war on cancer.” Powered by enormous financial support, this past half-century has witnessed remarkable progress in understanding the individual molecular mechanisms of cancer, primarily through the characterization of cancer genes and the phenotypes associated with their pathways. Despite millions of publications and the overwhelming volume data generated from the Cancer Genome Project, clinical benefits are still lacking. In fact, the massive, diverse data also unexpectedly challenge the current somatic gene mutation theory of cancer, as well as the initial rationales behind sequencing so many cancer samples. Therefore, what should we do next? Should we continue to sequence more samples and push for further molecular characterizations, or should we take a moment to pause and think about the biological meaning of the data we have, integrating new ideas in cancer biology? On this special anniversary, we implore that it is time for the latter. We review the Genome Architecture Theory, an alternative conceptual framework that departs from gene-based theories. Specifically, we discuss the relationship between genes, genomes, and information-based platforms for future cancer research. This discussion will reinforce some newly proposed concepts that are essential for advancing cancer research, including two-phased cancer evolution (which reconciles evolutionary contributions from karyotypes and genes), stress-induced genome chaos (which creates new system information essential for macroevolution), the evolutionary mechanism of cancer (which unifies diverse molecular mechanisms to create new karyotype coding during evolution), and cellular adaptation and cancer emergence (which explains why cancer exists in the first place). We hope that these ideas will usher in new genomic and evolutionary conceptual frameworks and strategies for the next 50 years of cancer research.