Perfect human stem cell genetic fidelity would prevent aging and cancer. However, perfection would be difficult to achieve, and aging is universal and cancers common. A hypothesis is that because mutations are inevitable over a human lifetime, downstream mechanisms have evolved to manage the deleterious effects of beneficial and lethal mutations. In the colon, a crypt stem cell architecture reduces the number of mitotic cells at risk for mutation accumulation, and multiple niche stem cells ensure that a lethal mutation within any single stem cell does not lead to crypt death. In addition, the architecture of the colon crypt stem cell niche may harness probability or chance to randomly discard many beneficial mutations that might lead to cancer. An analysis of somatic chromosome copy number alterations (CNAs) reveals a lack of perfect fidelity in individual normal human crypts, with age-related increases and higher frequencies in ulcerative colitis, a proliferative, inflammatory disease. The age-related increase in somatic CNAs appears consistent with relatively normal replication error and cell division rates. Surprisingly, and similar to point mutations in cancer genomes, the types of crypt mutations were more consistent with random fixation rather than selection. In theory, a simple "non-Darwinian" way to nullify selection is to reduce the size of the reproducing population. Fates are more determined by chance rather than selection in very small populations, and therefore selection may be minimized within small crypt niches. The desired effect is that many beneficial mutations that might lead to cancer are randomly lost by drift rather than fixed by selection. The subdivision of the colon into multiple very small stem cell niches may trade Darwinian evolution for non-Darwinian somatic cell evolution, capitulating to aging but reducing cancer risks.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2013.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in oncology
#15,917
of 22,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,406
of 288,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in oncology
#194
of 328 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 288,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 328 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
