Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conceptually and mechanistically, the evolution of multicellularity required the integration of single cells into new functionally, reproductively and evolutionary stable multicellular individuals. As part of this process, a change in levels of selection occurred, with selection at the multicellular level overriding selection at the cell level. The stability of multicellular individuals is dependent on a combination of mechanisms that supress within-group evolution, by both reducing the occurrence of somatic mutations as well as supressing somatic selection. Nevertheless, mutations that, in a particular microenvironment, confer mutant lineages a fitness advantage relative to normal somatic cells do occur, and can result in cancer. This minireview highlights several views and paradigms that relate the evolution of multicellularity to cancer. As a phenomenon, cancer is generally understood as a failure of multicellular systems to suppress somatic evolution. However, as a disease, cancer is interpreted in different frameworks: (i) a breakdown of cooperative behaviors underlying the evolution of multicellularity, (ii) a disruption of molecular networks established during the emergence of multicellularity to impose constraints on single-celled units, or (iii) an atavistic state resulting from reactivating primitive programs that originated in the earliest unicellular species. A number of assumptions are common in all the views relating cancer as a disease to the evolution of multicellularity. For instance, cancer is considered a reversal to unicellularity, and cancer cells are thought to both resemble unicellular organisms and benefit from ancestral-like traits. Nevertheless, potential limitations of current paradigms should be acknowledged as different perspectives can provide novel insights with potential therapeutic implications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".