Elsevier

Immunology Letters

Volume 90, Issues 2–3, 15 December 2003, Pages 103-122
Immunology Letters

Natural mechanisms protecting against cancer

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imlet.2003.08.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Carcinogenesis is a multistage process. At each step of this process, there are natural mechanisms protecting against development of cancer. The majority of cancers in humans is induced by carcinogenic factors present in our environment including our food. However, some natural substances present in our diet or synthesized in our cells are able to block, trap or decompose reactive oxygen species (ROS) participating in carcinogenesis. Carcinogens can also be removed from our cells. If DNA damage occurs, it is repaired in most of the cases. Unrepaired DNA alterations can be fixed as mutations in proliferating cells only and mutations of very few strategic genes can induce tumor formation, the most relevant are those activating proto-oncogenes and inactivating tumor suppressor genes. A series of mutations and/or epigenetic changes is required to drive transformation of a normal cell into malignant tumor. The apparently unrestricted growth has to be accompanied by a mechanism preserving telomeres which otherwise shorten with succeeding cell divisions leading to growth arrest. Tumor can not develop beyond the size of 1–2 mm in diameter without the induction of angiogenesis which is regulated by natural inhibitors. To invade the surrounding tissues epithelial tumor cells have to lose some adhesion molecules keeping them attached to each other and to produce enzymes able to dissolve the elements of the basement membrane. On the other hand, acquisition of other adhesion molecules enables interaction of circulating tumor cells with endothelial cells facilitating extravasation and metastasis. One of the last barriers protecting against cancer is the activity of the immune system. Both innate and adaptive immunity participates in anti-tumor effects including the activity of natural killer (NK) cells, natural killer T cells, macrophages, neutrophils and eosinophils, complement, various cytokines, specific antibodies, and specific T cytotoxic cells. Upon activation neutrophils and macrophages are able to kill tumor cells but they can also release ROS, angiogenic and immunosuppressive substances. Many cytokines belonging to different families display anti-tumor activity but their role in natural anti-tumor defense remains largely to be established.

Introduction

Natural defense mechanisms protecting against infection or against cancer can be categorized into non-immune and immune with the latter belonging either to innate or adaptive immunity.

Our concepts of the role of the immune system in the protection against cancer usually belong to two extreme attitudes that either exaggerate or negate the importance of immunity in this defense. On the one hand, Burnet suggested that immunosurveillance is responsible for detecting and eliminating tumor cells being a central mechanism by which tumor development is kept in check [1]. Based on this hypothesis, it could be assumed that arising tumor cells are destroyed by the immune system in the majority of cases, probably hundreds or thousands times during our life, and only rarely they evade this defense giving rise to malignant tumors. On the other hand, immune stimulation hypothesis predicts that low immune reactivity against tumors, as it is usually observed in cancer patients, is stimulating rather than inhibiting tumor cells [2]. As it often happens with extreme attitudes neither of the above theories seems to be correct. Immune defense mechanisms form the last barrier in our natural mechanisms of protection against cancer and are probably less effective as compared with some other mechanisms operating at earlier stages of malignant tumor formation.

The immune mechanisms that protect against infectious microorganisms, operating during the entire lifespan of individuals including their reproductive periods, have undergone positive selection and thus became perfected during human evolution under selective pressure of attacking microbes and diseases they produce. Non-immune mechanisms protecting against cancer, as they are active at early stages of the multistep process of carcinogenesis, had similar chance for positive selection and perfection. It should be kept in mind that genetic selection acts on the individual phenotypes and either favors or hinders reproduction and thus the propagation of that individual’s genotype [3]. Thus, selection may operate at any time from conception to the end of the reproductive period but not beyond that time [4]. Since the multistage process of carcinogenesis and full development of cancer lasts for up to several decades [5] and cancer incidence grows exponentially with age, it can be hypothesized that immune anti-tumor mechanisms operating usually in elderly population did not have such an opportunity for positive selection and improvement in our evolution. Some observations seem to support indirectly this hypothesis suggesting more important role of non-immune anti-carcinogenic mechanisms operating early as compared with anti-tumor immunity operating later. Nucleotide-excision repair (NER), which is only one of the DNA repair mechanisms, protects against cancer at early stage of carcinogenesis. Impairment of NER observed in the human recessive hereditary disease xeroderma pigmentosum, causes a 5000-fold increase in the incidence of squamous and basal cell carcinoma and a 2000-fold increase in the incidence of melanoma [6]. On the other hand, prolonged treatment with immunosuppressive drugs in allograft recipients effectively impairs adaptive immunity but increases the risk of squamous and basal cell carcinoma “only” 65-fold according to one of the reports [7] although skin cancers are among the most frequent neoplasms in allograft recipients [8]. In another report, incidence of cancer of the lip, skin (non-melanotic), kidney, endocrine glands, and cervix of uterus, was increased 10–30 times in renal transplant patients [9].

Our knowledge on the natural defense against cancer is far from being complete and is full of paradoxes and misconceptions. A good example of this unawareness was our conviction that supplementation of human diet with β carotene should diminish the incidence of cancer (see below).

Section snippets

The multistage process of carcinogenesis

Based on the experimental studies in rodents, the multistage process of carcinogenesis has been traditionally divided into initiation, promotion and progression [10], [11] (Fig. 1).

Initiation begins with DNA damage in a cell population exposed to chemical, physical or microbial (mostly viral) carcinogens. If not repaired, DNA damage could produce genetic mutations. The majority of these DNA alterations is irrelevant to the life of the cell and is completely innocent from the point of view of

Anti-carcinogenic substances present in the human diet

It is considered that 80–90% of all human cancers are environmentally induced [13] and 30–40% of them by carcinogens present in our diet [14]. Almost all plants including those forming human diet, seem to produce some kind of toxic substances called natural pesticides, defending them against fungi, insects and/or animals feeding on them [15], [16], [17]. Many of both synthetic and natural pesticides are carcinogenic at appropriate doses [18]. Although our fears are mainly concentrated on

The concept of tumor immunosurveillance

The tumor immunosurveillance hypothesis, first raised by Paul Ehrlich in 1909 and then refined by Burnet and Thomas, postulated that the immune system constantly surveys the newly developing tumors and, as long as it is effective, prevents the development of neoplastic disease. It was assumed that clinically evident tumors represent exceptions that slipped through the immunological net.

The increased incidence of tumors in immunosuppressed recipients following organ transplantation, and in

References (251)

  • P. Jensen et al.

    J. Am. Acad. Dermatol.

    (1999)
  • M.P. Rayman

    Lancet

    (2000)
  • T.J. Key et al.

    Lancet

    (2002)
  • A.B. Awad et al.

    J. Nutr.

    (2000)
  • B. Ketterer

    Mutat. Res.

    (1988)
  • M.O. James et al.

    Chem. Biol. Interact.

    (1991)
  • D.M. Gertig et al.

    Semin. Cancer Biol.

    (1998)
  • F.J. Gonzalez et al.

    Trends Genet.

    (1990)
  • P.C. Hanawalt et al.

    Trends Genet.

    (1986)
  • J.H. Hoeijmakers

    Eur. J. Cancer

    (1994)
  • P. Schar

    Cell

    (2001)
  • D.A. Haber et al.

    Lancet

    (1998)
  • K. Macleod

    Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.

    (2000)
  • O. Pluquet et al.

    Cancer Lett.

    (2001)
  • K.M. Ryan et al.

    Curr. Opin. Cell Biol.

    (2001)
  • W.S. el-Deiry

    Semin. Cancer Biol.

    (1998)
  • K.H. Vousden

    Cell

    (2000)
  • D. Hanahan et al.

    Cell

    (2000)
  • I.J. Fidler et al.

    Cell

    (1994)
  • K.J. O’Byrne et al.

    Eur. J. Cancer

    (2000)
  • L.A. Liotta et al.

    Cell

    (1991)
  • M. Burnet

    Br. J. Cancer

    (1965)
  • R.T. Prehn

    Cancer Res.

    (1994)
  • J.M. Connor, M.A. Ferguson-Smith, In: M.A. Ferguson-Smith (Ed.), Essential Medical Genetics, Blackwell Scientific...
  • T.D. Gelehrter, F.S. Collins, Principles of Medical Genetics, Williams and Willkins,...
  • C.R. Boland et al.

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

    (1999)
  • K.H. Kraemer et al.

    Arch. Dermatol.

    (1987)
  • R.S. Schwartz

    J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monogr.

    (2000)
  • S.A. Birkeland et al.

    Int. J. Cancer

    (1995)
  • C.C. Harris

    Cancer Res.

    (1991)
  • S.D. Hursting et al.

    J. Natl. Cancer Inst.

    (1999)
  • W.C. Hahn et al.

    Nat. Rev. Cancer

    (2002)
  • H. Jensen et al.

    Acta Med. Scand.

    (1988)
  • M.R. Clemens

    Klin. Wochenschr.

    (1991)
  • B.N. Ames et al.

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

    (1990)
  • L.S. Gold et al.

    Science

    (1992)
  • B.N. Ames

    Science

    (1983)
  • B.N. Ames et al.

    Science

    (1990)
  • T.M. Florence

    Proc. Nutr. Aust.

    (1990)
  • M. Polverelli et al.

    Z. Naturforsch. [C]

    (1974)
  • B.I. Carr

    Cancer

    (1985)
  • B.N. Ames

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

    (1999)
  • B.N. Ames et al.

    Nat. Rev. Cancer

    (2002)
  • R. Nowak

    Science

    (1994)
  • D. Schottenfeld, J.F. Fraumeni, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, second ed., Oxford University Press, New York, NY,...
  • W.C.R. Fund, American Institute for Cancer Research, Washington, DC, 1997, pp....
  • G.S. Omenn et al.

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (1996)
  • O.P. Heinonen et al.

    N. Engl. J. Med.

    (1994)
  • P.A. Cerutti

    Science

    (1985)
  • I. Fridovich

    Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol.

    (1983)
  • Cited by (166)

    • The role of photodynamic therapy in breast cancer – A review of in vitro research

      2021, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy
      Citation Excerpt :

      This phenomenon is called smooth ER stress and leads to the activation of a response to unfolded UPR proteins. Both processes induce apoptosis by activating caspases [31]. ALA-PDT can induce apoptosis, or programmed cell death, sparing the tissues surrounding the tumor.

    • Melanoma in the liver: Oxidative stress and the mechanisms of metastatic cell survival

      2021, Seminars in Cancer Biology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Furthermore, during organ invasion (see Fig. 2), it must be also taken into account that metastatic cells are exposed to the attack of our immune system, including natural killer (NK) cells, macrophages, neutrophils and eosinophils, complement, various cytokines, specific antibodies, and specific T cytotoxic cells. Neutrophils and macrophages might kill tumor cells, but they can also release ROS, angiogenic and immunosuppressive substances [108]. Besides, NO derived from macrophages also has a potentially cytotoxic/cytostatic effect on tumor cells [109,110].

    • Application of Bodipy in Photodynamic Therapy

      2024, AIP Conference Proceedings
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text