Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Paper
  • Published:

Checkpoint genes, ageing, and the development of cancer

Oncogene volume 23, pages 7799–7809 (2004)Cite this article

Abstract

Mathematical models are used to examine the relationship between checkpoint competence, ageing, and the development of cancer. The models take into account the dynamics of healthy tissue, the dynamics of initial tumor growth, and the interactions between healthy tissue and tumor cells. Two types of behavior are found. (i) A reduction of checkpoint competence results in reduced ageing of tissue, but in faster development and progression of tumors. (ii) Reduced checkpoint competence results both in reduced ageing of tissue, and in a reduced incidence of tumors. The tumors which do become established, however, are predicted to progress at an accelerated rate. The models define the conditions under which this counter-intuitive finding is observed. One reason could be the relationship between checkpoint activity and the ability of the tissue environment to exert inhibitory effects on tumor cells. Checkpoints induce senescence in tissue cells, and this compromises their ability to suppress tumor growth. Reduced checkpoint competence leads to reduced tissue senescence, and this results in higher amounts of tumor inhibition. The theoretical work is discussed with respect to data from p53 mutant mice, which show both types of relationships suggested by the models. The models help to identify differences in the experimental protocols which could explain the seemingly contradictory observations.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bayko L, Rak J, Man S, Bicknell R, Ferrara N and Kerbel RS . (1998). Angiogenesis, 2, 203–217.

  • Blagosklonny MV . (2002). Int. J. Cancer, 98, 161–166.

  • Campisi J . (2001). Scientific World J., 1, 65.

  • Campisi J . (2003). Nat. Rev. Cancer, 3, 339–349.

  • Camplejohn RS, Gilchrist R, Easton D, McKenzie-Edwards E, Barnes DM, Eccles DM, Ardern-Jones A, Hodgson SV, Duddy PM and Eeles RA . (2003). Br. J. Cancer, 88, 487–490.

  • Chavez-Reyes A, Parant JM, Amelse LL, de Oca Luna RM, Korsmeyer SJ and Lozano G . (2003). Cancer Res., 63, 8664–8669.

  • Cunha GR and Matrisian LM . (2002). Differentiation, 70, 469–472.

  • Donehower LA . (2002). J. Cell. Physiol., 192, 23–33.

  • Evans SC and Lozano G . (1997). Mol. Med. Today, 3, 390–395.

  • Finkel T and Holbrook NJ . (2000). Nature, 408, 239–247.

  • Folkman J . (2002). Semin. Oncol., 29, 15–18.

  • Folkman J and Kalluri R . (2004). Nature, 427, 787.

  • Gilhar A, Ullmann Y, Karry R, Shalaginov R, Assy B, Serafimovich S and Kalish RS . (2004). Br. J. Dermatol., 150, 56–63.

  • Guba M, Cernaianu G, Koehl G, Geissler EK, Jauch KW, Anthuber M, Falk W and Steinbauer M . (2001). Cancer Res., 61, 5575–5579.

  • Hahnfeldt P, Panigrahy D, Folkman J and Hlatky L . (1999). Cancer Res., 59, 4770–4775.

  • Hasty P, Campisi J, Hoeijmakers J, van Steeg H and Vijg J . (2003). Science, 299, 1355–1359.

  • Hsu MY, Meier F and Herlyn M . (2002). Differentiation, 70, 522–536.

  • Itahana K, Dimri G and Campisi J . (2001). Eur. J. Biochem, 268, 2784–2791.

  • Jansen-Durr P . (2002). Scientific World J., 2, 943–948.

  • Kahlem P, Dorken B and Schmitt CA . (2004). J. Clin. Invest., 113, 169–174.

  • Kemp CJ, Donehower LA, Bradley A and Balmain A . (1993). Cell, 74, 813–822.

  • Kirkwood TB . (2002). BioEssays, 24, 577–579.

  • Komarova NL and Wodarz D . (2003). Cancer Res., 63, 6635–6642.

  • Lengauer C, Kinzler KW and Vogelstein B . (1998). Nature, 396, 643–649.

  • Mueller MM and Fusenig NE . (2002). Differentiation, 70, 486–497.

  • Offer H, Erez N, Zurer I, Tang X, Milyavsky M, Goldfinger N and Rotter V . (2002). Carcinogenesis, 23, 1025–1032.

  • Oren M . (2003). Cell Death Differ., 10, 431–442.

  • Parrinello S, Samper E, Krtolica A, Goldstein J, Melov S and Campisi J . (2003). Nat. Cell. Biol., 5, 741–747.

  • Schmitt CA . (2003). Nat. Rev. Cancer, 3, 286–295.

  • Sharpless NE and DePinho RA . (2002). Cell, 110, 9–12.

  • Tlsty TD . (2001). Semin. Cancer Biol., 11, 97–104.

  • Tlsty TD and Hein PW . (2001). Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev., 11, 54–59.

  • Tyner SD, Venkatachalam S, Choi J, Jones S, Ghebranious N, Igelmann H, Lu X, Soron G, Cooper B, Brayton C, Hee Park S, Thompson T, Karsenty G, Bradley A and Donehower LA . (2002). Nature, 415, 45–53.

  • Vogelstein B, Lane D and Levine AJ . (2000). Nature, 408, 307–310.

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Chris Kemp for many useful discussions and comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology and Evolution, Steinhaus Hall, University of California, Irvine, 92697, CA, USA

    Dominik Wodarz

  2. Institute for Advanced Study, Einstein Drive, Princeton, 08540, NJ, USA

    Dominik Wodarz

Authors
  1. Dominik Wodarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dominik Wodarz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wodarz, D. Checkpoint genes, ageing, and the development of cancer. Oncogene 23, 7799–7809 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1207833

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1207833

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links