cancer of the heart

Alec Redwood aredwood at cyllene.uwa.edu.au
Mon Apr 26 21:03:54 EST 1999


> Not really, the way I read it is that mutations that cause cancer need to be
> passed on to daugter cells to have an effect.  You may get a mutation that
> predisposes to immortality but it will not cause cancer as one imortal cell
> is not a problem, however if you pass this mutation on to a cell that is
> capable of division then you get a problem as you have multiple imortal
> cells.  This is probably a gross simplification as there appears to be a
> requirement for multiple mutations and some in genes that control cell
> division.  So I suppose it is theoretically possible to get mutations first
> in genes that control cell division in a non-dividing cell that allows for
> the development of cancer

Andrew Leung wrote:

> In response to the statement "Muscle gets less cancer"

>
> Is this because cancer is a multistep mutational consequence? I mean muscle
> is more specialized for its specific function. To have multiple mutations
> that lead to consequence of cancer phenotype in muscle cell is not as highly
> probable as those cells that are less restricted to enter cell cycle again.
>
> Andrew
>
> Alec Redwood *¶*g©ó€å31 <37200D6F.E5031BAB at cyllene.uwa.edu.au>...
> >> you do not  get cancers of cells that don't divide (now someone will
> >> tell me of some strange cancer) muscle cells and neurons don't divide,
> >> what you have is all you get. Brain cancers are due to cells other
> >> than neurons such as glial cells or astrocytes.
> >




More information about the Bioforum mailing list