First Tasmanian Devils born in the wild of Australia mainland in 3k years(reuters.com)
reuters.com
First Tasmanian Devils born in the wild of Australia mainland in 3k years
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/first-tasmanian-devils-born-wild-australia-mainland-3000-years-2021-05-26/
56 comments
I have never heard of transmittable cancer before. Are there transmittable cancers among humans?
Whilst not directly defined as a transmittable cancer, the HPV virus family sure does come close.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-papil...
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-papil...
Cervical cancer is usually caused by HPV. So women can prevent it by getting vaccinated
HPV causes cancer in men too (throat), and they should also be vaccinated.
Though that is a virus that causes cancer, whereas the cancer under discussion is transmitted directly. Splitting hairs though, IMO!
I think it's a lot more than just splitting hairs.
There are many viral-initiated cancers. The virus is transmissible, and then when the virus infects host cells in causes the DNA machinery of the cell to go haywire, leading to cancer. Examples include HPV (causes cervical, anal and throat cancer) and feline leukemia virus (retrovirus which causes weakened immune system and leukemia in cats).
This is very different from a transmissible cancer, where it is the cancer cells themselves that can infect other hosts, which is pretty crazy when you first think about it. According to wikipedia there are only 3 known types among mammals: canine transmissible venereal tumor, devil facial tumor, and another cancer that affects Syrian hamsters.
There are many viral-initiated cancers. The virus is transmissible, and then when the virus infects host cells in causes the DNA machinery of the cell to go haywire, leading to cancer. Examples include HPV (causes cervical, anal and throat cancer) and feline leukemia virus (retrovirus which causes weakened immune system and leukemia in cats).
This is very different from a transmissible cancer, where it is the cancer cells themselves that can infect other hosts, which is pretty crazy when you first think about it. According to wikipedia there are only 3 known types among mammals: canine transmissible venereal tumor, devil facial tumor, and another cancer that affects Syrian hamsters.
There's also Human Herpes Virus 8 that causes Kopsi's Sarcoma[0]. Nearly all cases are found in immunocompromised individuals, and in times/places without HAART readily available, it is/was a common cancer in HIV+ people. In these cases, in some sense a co-infection of HHV-8 and HIV causes the cancer.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaposi%27s_sarcoma
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaposi%27s_sarcoma
I wonder if such a cancer is less cancer, and more a parasite, from a certain perspective?
For pretty much any A and B, you can create a perspective from which A is like B. The interesting question is "in which cases does this perspective give useful insights or solutions?"
For treating a single animal, it's almost certainly useful to view it as a cancer. (Most drugs toxic to it will also be pretty toxic to the host, suppressing angiogenesis is helpful, etc.) From an epidemiology perspective, it probably behaves and spreads most like a bacterial infection. (Simple cell life cycle, limited environmental persistence, etc.) Parasites typically have a much more complex life cycle than these cells, and are much easier to target with drugs that won't harm the host.
So... maybe there's a use case where thinking of it as a parasite is useful, but it's not immediately obvious to me.
For treating a single animal, it's almost certainly useful to view it as a cancer. (Most drugs toxic to it will also be pretty toxic to the host, suppressing angiogenesis is helpful, etc.) From an epidemiology perspective, it probably behaves and spreads most like a bacterial infection. (Simple cell life cycle, limited environmental persistence, etc.) Parasites typically have a much more complex life cycle than these cells, and are much easier to target with drugs that won't harm the host.
So... maybe there's a use case where thinking of it as a parasite is useful, but it's not immediately obvious to me.
Just so you know boys can get the vaccine too to prevent them becoming carriers.
> prevent them becoming carriers
Avoiding passing the virus on to female partners isn't the only benefit for men. HPV also can cause penile, throat, and anal cancers in men. For instance, Michael Douglas has stated his throat cancer was caused by HPV acquired through cunnilingus.
Avoiding passing the virus on to female partners isn't the only benefit for men. HPV also can cause penile, throat, and anal cancers in men. For instance, Michael Douglas has stated his throat cancer was caused by HPV acquired through cunnilingus.
And the FDA recently raised the age limit to 45! If you missed it when you get it’s now an option.
My uncle has terminal cancer after getting HPV in his throat from a woman who had it, 20+ years ago.
Yes, and there are even vaccines for them:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hpv-infection...
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hpv-infection...
HPV is a virus (human papillomavirus) that can cause cancer, whereas with devil facial tumour disease the cancer itself spreads.
This means the cells that form the devil facial tumour are genetically identical across all individual animals infected with it. Normal cancer cells are your own cells which have developed a genetic abnormality, not somebody else's! As I understand it, an HPV infection increases the chance that one of your own cells will develop a genetic abnormality and become cancerous.
This means the cells that form the devil facial tumour are genetically identical across all individual animals infected with it. Normal cancer cells are your own cells which have developed a genetic abnormality, not somebody else's! As I understand it, an HPV infection increases the chance that one of your own cells will develop a genetic abnormality and become cancerous.
The distinction you are drawing is not relevant to the question or supported by the original claim:
>> The Devil Facial Tumour Disease" they suffer from is one of the few non-viral transmittable cancers.
That phrasing obviously contemplates the existence of viral transmissible cancers such as HPV.
If one person states "this is one of the few known non-viral transmissible cancers", and someone else follows up with the question "are there any transmissible cancers in humans?", how does information on transmissible cancers in humans get judged off-topic? Nobody asked "are there any non-viral transmissible cancers in humans?".
>> The Devil Facial Tumour Disease" they suffer from is one of the few non-viral transmittable cancers.
That phrasing obviously contemplates the existence of viral transmissible cancers such as HPV.
If one person states "this is one of the few known non-viral transmissible cancers", and someone else follows up with the question "are there any transmissible cancers in humans?", how does information on transmissible cancers in humans get judged off-topic? Nobody asked "are there any non-viral transmissible cancers in humans?".
I read "are there any transmissible cancers in humans?" in the context as referring to cancers that are themselves transmissible like devil facial tumor disease. (It appears every result in the first few pages of a Google search for the term "transmissible cancer" refers to transmission of cancer cells themselves, not cancers caused by infectious agents.)
I can see both sides of this, though as a data point I also read it as "viral or otherwise".
The context explicitly distinguishes "transmissible cancers" from "non-viral transmissible cancers". That's only possible when "transmissible cancers" includes cancers that are transmitted by viruses.
I don't believe there's any known human ones, but there's a dog one that is 11,000 years old (Canine Transmissible Veneral Tumour) and there's a clam one.
The dog one is rampant where I live in Mexico. Treatable of catched early and the dog is lucky enough to have someone affluent watching over it, but most don't.
What name(s) do you have for it? What's the philology?
> Are there transmittable cancers among human?
I don’t think there are any known examples of cancer transmission (as opposed to transmission of viruses that cause cancer) in humans; leukemias have shown to be transmissible in mice in the lab.
I don’t think there are any known examples of cancer transmission (as opposed to transmission of viruses that cause cancer) in humans; leukemias have shown to be transmissible in mice in the lab.
There kind of is—direct transmission of cancer has been documented mother-to-child (pregnancy) and as a rare complication of organ transplants.
It's also transmissible through a syringe
The real interesting part is that DNA from the first devil to develop the tumor is living on forever in other individuals.
Due to the high mutation rates of tumor cells, it is unlikely the "same" DNA. And it definitely does not live forever if it wipes out populations. That degree of aggressiveness is not a good survival strategy.
There is a theory that some (now) parasites were actually transmittable cancers before, which then developed multi-cellularity that allowed them to have the distinct cell types that they needed to be an own lifeform. Developing multi-cellularity in eurkaryotes has been reported a few dozen times if I remember correctly. Crazy stuff, if true.
that's one of the craziest theories I've ever heard (and amazing if correct!)
I found this article https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s13062-019-023... but I still haven't read it!
Here's another for you - the virus-first hypothesis posits that all cellular life on earth is the result of viruses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolution
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140716-gi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_evolution
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/140716-gi...
In humans it's very rare and usually related to transplants e.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12692543/
Is this not natural selection at work?
They aren’t dying of anything human introduced... they bite each other’s faces off and it turns into cancer. They really are a fairly horrible creature... like an angry vicious hamster.
They aren’t dying of anything human introduced... they bite each other’s faces off and it turns into cancer. They really are a fairly horrible creature... like an angry vicious hamster.
Oh right.. and when have humans ever allowed a little thing like natural selection impact anything?
I’m confused how to respond to this.
All the time?
All the time?
> Is this not natural selection at work?
I fail to see how this is relevant. Yes, Tasmanian Devil's are dying of "natural causes". But, humans like them and want them to continue living. So, humans will preserve them if possible. Now, natural selection is selecting for creatures that humans like as well as creatures that don't bite each others's faces off. Natural selection does not pick morally good creatures to survive. Natural selection is merely the fact that creatures that live long enough to have babies, live long enough to have babies.
I fail to see how this is relevant. Yes, Tasmanian Devil's are dying of "natural causes". But, humans like them and want them to continue living. So, humans will preserve them if possible. Now, natural selection is selecting for creatures that humans like as well as creatures that don't bite each others's faces off. Natural selection does not pick morally good creatures to survive. Natural selection is merely the fact that creatures that live long enough to have babies, live long enough to have babies.
The good news is that it seems unlikely to hop species barriers, or survive long in the absence of Tasmanian Devils. Presumably they’ll be able to reintroduce healthy ones after the cancer wipes them out in a given region.
> Long term a totally separate population is the only way they will be able to keep the Devils from extinction.
Are you sure?
From your Wikipedia link:
> Despite this, devil populations persist in disease-stricken areas.[69] The devils have, in a way, fought back the extinction by developing the gene that is immune to face tumors.
Are you sure?
From your Wikipedia link:
> Despite this, devil populations persist in disease-stricken areas.[69] The devils have, in a way, fought back the extinction by developing the gene that is immune to face tumors.
If left to continue to evolve in the wild, I would think that eventually this cancer would eventually be easily classified as its own species... if it can’t be so classified already.
Similar to the Descolada from the Ender's Game series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenocide
> ... the descolada, a virus that kills all humans it infects ...
> ... the Descolada is intrinsically tied in with the life cycles of all Lusitanian organisms and may even be sentient itself.
> ... the descolada, a virus that kills all humans it infects ...
> ... the Descolada is intrinsically tied in with the life cycles of all Lusitanian organisms and may even be sentient itself.
I moved to Tasmania to work remotely a few months ago.
I'm yet to see a devil, although I have seen other animals. They did exist on the mainland thousands of years ago but were wiped out by Dingoes. It's assumed these were introduced by Australian Aboriginal people who brought them here from South East Asia.
Tasmania is dingo free, which is why there are still devil's here
I'm yet to see a devil, although I have seen other animals. They did exist on the mainland thousands of years ago but were wiped out by Dingoes. It's assumed these were introduced by Australian Aboriginal people who brought them here from South East Asia.
Tasmania is dingo free, which is why there are still devil's here
I move here from Adelaide nearly 8 years ago.
You're unlikely to see a Devil in the wild, shy little creatures.
Definitely check out one or all of the wildlife sanctuaries, Trowunna, Bonorong, Devils at Cradle, and others.
I'm in Launceston and operate a laser cutter, if you ever want anythinh metal laser cut hit me up, contact details in my profile.
You're unlikely to see a Devil in the wild, shy little creatures.
Definitely check out one or all of the wildlife sanctuaries, Trowunna, Bonorong, Devils at Cradle, and others.
I'm in Launceston and operate a laser cutter, if you ever want anythinh metal laser cut hit me up, contact details in my profile.
The article says all of that.
I follow https://twitter.com/davidghamilton1 on Twitter who is a Tasmanian Devil researcher and constantly posts fantastic photographs of them (and Quolls and other excellent Australian wildlife).
Here's a recent picture of their teeth: https://twitter.com/davidghamilton1/status/13927908758691266...
Here's a recent picture of their teeth: https://twitter.com/davidghamilton1/status/13927908758691266...
Just asking, but why the teeth?
> Thanks to their sharp teeth devils can slice the meat and crush bones pretty easily. Tasmanian devils have the most powerful bite of any mammal given the size of its body. They can open their jaws 75 – 80 degrees.
> Tasmanian devils have 42 teeth but these are not replaced after birth. They continue to grow all throughout the devil’s life and the growth is gradual. Dogs do replace their teeth.
> They can exert a force of 553 N (56.4 kgf). Thanks to its large head and big jaw-opening, Tasmanian devils can tear apart any meat including the hardest of the bones.
https://tasmaniandevil.net/tasmanian-devil-teeth/
the video in this link has more tidbits and is cute as hell.
> Tasmanian devils have 42 teeth but these are not replaced after birth. They continue to grow all throughout the devil’s life and the growth is gradual. Dogs do replace their teeth.
> They can exert a force of 553 N (56.4 kgf). Thanks to its large head and big jaw-opening, Tasmanian devils can tear apart any meat including the hardest of the bones.
https://tasmaniandevil.net/tasmanian-devil-teeth/
the video in this link has more tidbits and is cute as hell.
[1] suggests human molars can Apply a staggering 1100 Newton's, substantially more...
[1]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/who-are-y...
[1]: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/who-are-y...
Having lived in a place that had Devils, and having seen them first hand, I'd be so upset if they went extinct. They're such a cute and incredibly iconic animal for us, and the fact they were practically wiped out by a pest animal introduced here for sport-hunting is infuriating and depressing.
This gives me hope that somewhere out there in wild there may be a few Tasmanian tigers still alive and well-hidden.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thylacine#Unconfirmed_sighting...
The devils were introduced to the mainland (a National Park in NSW) intentionally in 2020.
It is transmitted by biting, but also any contact with cancer cells (such as sharing food), so the most active/fittest are hit first.
Long term a totally separate population is the only way they will be able to keep the Devils from extinction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil_facial_tumour_disease