Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday September 02 2016, @08:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the bugs-bunny-would-be-proud dept.

Although cancer rarely acts as an infectious disease, a recently emerged transmissible cancer in Tasmanian devils (Sarcophilus harrisii) is virtually 100% fatal. Devil facial tumour disease (DFTD) has swept across nearly the entire species' range, resulting in localized declines exceeding 90% and an overall species decline of more than 80% in less than 20 years.

Researchers have found that Tasmanian devils have developed some genetic resistance to the disease in just four to six generations.

Evolving resistance within so few generations is rare for vertebrates, says Beata Ujvari, an evolutionary ecologist at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia, who was not invovled in the study. Australia's rabbit population quickly developed resistance to myxomatosis, a fatal viral infection. But it took 50–80 generations to do so.

The devil facial-tumour disease jumps from one Tasmanian devil to another when they bite each other during social interactions.

http://www.nature.com/news/tasmanian-devils-show-signs-of-resistance-to-devastating-facial-cancer-1.20508
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160830/ncomms12684/full/ncomms12684.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @11:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @11:54AM (#396632)

    The thing is that the trait (resistance to cancer) needs to be present in some form to evolve. This can take quite some time if it isn't present. The fact that it goes so quick suggests that the trait was already present in a subpopulation, where it took a few generations to spread through the whole population. A geneticist should then wonder, why it was already present. It could be very well be that the disease is dormant for a few decades and resurfaces then, where resistance takes up quickly and the disease is pushed back.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @01:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @01:26PM (#396642)

    Perhaps the thing that makes the cancer transfer is a broken gene that 80% of the population had.
    If the working version gave some small advantage, that might explain why it was still around.
    Hopefully they saved some samples from the broken part of the population and can figure this out with gene sequencing.

    If they did not see the gene change which could take a long time, but they did see a selection given the change which was pretty quick;
    then perhaps this isn't a case of 'evolving resistance' because resistance was already there.
    It could be instead a case of the quick half of evolution.

    If the other version of the gene hadn't already been there, and so the species had to wait for all of evolution to proceed, it seems likely that the species would not be here.

    There is a lesson here in how for fast our species could change due to an unexpected biological appearance.
    One hopes he necessary genes will be somewhere in the pool when the need shows up.

    • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday September 02 2016, @08:48PM

      by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Friday September 02 2016, @08:48PM (#396778)

      If the working version gave some small advantage, that might explain why it was still around.

      It is possible that in previous manifestations of the cancer that it struck more aged animals, taking out individuals that were past prime breeding age and which had already passed on their genes. Since there are greater stresses on the population due to a variety of environmental factors, the cancer may be manifesting itself earlier now. Or, if the gene for susceptibility to the cancer is recessive, it is possible that an already struggling indigent population of the animals is forcing a smaller gene pool together. There are a lot of different factors which could account for the rise in the cancers, let us hope the remaining population has enough variability to ensure the survival of the species.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @03:35PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @03:35PM (#396674)

    Maybe there is something in the environment that contributes to getting the cancer that was only scarcely present at one time, perhaps in certain locations, that is much more abundant or widespread today. Those that were exposed to it developed the gene over a few generations in the past and those genes got spread throughout the wider population to some extent as a form of remembering that this thing does or did exist in nature someplace and may resurface. In a sense you can argue it's like the population's immune system remembering something that happened a long time ago at least to some of its members and retaining some of the information necessary to survive it up to today within members of at least some of its current population.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @09:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 02 2016, @09:35PM (#396790)

      I don't think there is any proof of "remembering" in genetics (in the way the immune system does it). Current models state that if a gene isn't needed any more it will converted to something more useful or will disappear over time. Keeping a "memory" costs resources to the organism, this cost reduces fitness of the individual.

      The thing I mentioned above comes closest as a "memory", e.g. that a gene is retained by mild selective pressure or bet hedging.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @04:27AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @04:27AM (#396908)

        While you are generally right if a gene isn't any or that much less beneficial than another gene then it may remain in the population. There are genes that are neither beneficial nor detrimental relative to other genes, otherwise natural selection would make everyone identical.

        Some people may have brown hair, some people may have black hair. In most situations hair color may not matter much but if a situation does arise where it does matter hair color could be a factor.

        Another example could be butterfly color. In many situations it doesn't matter, except for when it does (ie: how well you blend into the environment and evade predators). When it doesn't matter the population may retain various colors from when it did matter.

        Some characteristics from hedge betting could have been past characteristics that were at one time used for survival but aren't necessarily detrimental when compared to another surviving gene.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @04:29AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 03 2016, @04:29AM (#396909)

          errr ... if a gene isn't any or that much less detrimental than another gene *

      • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Monday September 05 2016, @04:55AM

        by butthurt (6141) on Monday September 05 2016, @04:55AM (#397682) Journal

        More than 100 cases of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance phenomena have been reported in a wide range of organisms, including prokaryotes, plants, and animals.

        --https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Transgenerational [wikipedia.org]