Evolution of Energy Metabolism, Stem Cells and Cancer Stem Cells: How the Warburg and Barker Hypotheses Might Be Linked.
- Author:
James E TROSKO
1
;
Kyung Sun KANG
Author Information
1. Department of Pediatrics and Human Development, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University, Eas Lansing, Michigan, USA.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Stem cells;
Cancer;
Adult;
Carcinogenesis
- MeSH:
Adult;
Adult Stem Cells;
Energy Metabolism;
Genome;
Glycolysis;
Humans;
Mitochondria;
Oceans and Seas;
Oxidative Phosphorylation;
Oxygen;
Stem Cells;
Teratoma
- From:International Journal of Stem Cells
2012;5(1):39-56
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
The evolutionary transition from single cells to the metazoan forced the appearance of adult stem cells and a hypoxic niche, when oxygenation of the environment forced the appearance of oxidative phosphorylation from that of glycolysis. The prevailing paradigm in the cancer field is that cancers start from the "immortalization" or "re-programming" of a normal, differentiated cell with many mitochondria, that metabolize via oxidative phosphorylation. This paradigm has been challenged with one that assumes that the target cell for carcinogenesis is the normal, immortal adult stem cell, with few mitochondria. This adult organ-specific stem cell is blocked from "mortalizing" or from "programming" to be terminally differentiated. Two hypotheses have been offered to explain cancers, namely, the "stem cell theory" and the "de-differentiation" or "re-programming" theory. This Commentary postulates that the paleochemistry of the oceans, which, initially, provided conditions for life's energy to arise via glycolysis, changed to oxidative phosphorylation for life's processes. In doing so, stem cells evolved, within hypoxic niches, to protect the species germinal and somatic genomes. This Commentary provides support for the "stem cell theory", in that cancer cells, which, unlike differentiated cells, have few mitochondria and metabolize via glycolysis. The major argument against the "de-differentiation theory" is that, if re-programming of a differentiated cell to an "induced pluri-potent stem cell" happened in an adult, teratomas, rather than carcinomas, should be the result.
