The wolves are exposed to cancer-causing radiation as they roam the wastelands of the abandoned city - with researchers finding part of their genetic information seems resilient to increased risk of the disease.

The wolves are exposed to cancer-causing radiation as they roam the wastelands of the abandoned city - with researchers finding part of their genetic information seems resilient to increased risk of the disease.

  • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
    61·
    9 months ago

    So, is it that they have adapted to the radiation, or that they’re more resistant to cancer? What is the biological and or medical differentiation between these two things, because the article doesn’t really explain that.

    I mean, I understand if the answer is, “yes,” but there must be a more meaningful different different differentiation between these two processes. I know I’m asking as a lay person, but is there anyone here who can explain this a little more clearly for the rest of us?

    • DocMcStuffin@lemmy.world
      13·
      9 months ago

      Found an npr interview with the researchers that provides more insight: Why wolves are thriving in this radioactive zone

      CAMPBELL-STATON: So in general, we found that the fastest-evolving regions within Chernobyl are in and around genes that we know have some role in cancer immune response or the anti-tumor immune response in mammals.

      …

      CAMPBELL-STATON: The major question that we had was, is there selection happening? Our data clearly show that there is a genetic component - you know? - and a significant and strong genetic component. That does not mean that the entire story is based around genetics.

      BARBER: This might be why the wolf population is thriving. After generations of developing a resilience or resistance to cancer, they’re now successful apex predators in an area once devoid of much other life. But Shane says, even if natural selection is at play here, there’s another big factor at play.

      CAMPBELL-STATON: The other thing is humans aren’t there, right? A wolf within the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone - it may have to deal with pressures from cancer, but it doesn’t have to deal with pressures from, say, hunting. And it may be that the release from that hunting pressure - that separation from humans - turns out to be a much better thing than having to deal with cancer, which is kind of messed up.

      BARBER: So when you think about that initial conundrum - why is the wolf population in Chernobyl estimated to be seven times denser than in other areas? - it’s hard to know exactly why. Maybe wolves with cancer-resistant or -resilient genes are naturally selected. Maybe they just don’t need to worry about humans. Cara and Shane say it’s probably a bit of both, but they hope to take more trips to the CEZ to figure this out. And they also think that if they’re able to identify the genes responsible for this cancer resilience or resistance in wolves, it could inform human cancer treatments.

      • gregorum@lemm.eeEnglish
        6·
        9 months ago

        thank you.

        see, the human brain will, by habit, try to make sense of something that doesn’t fit a pattern. however, it has an inherent weakness in its otherwise very powerful pattern-matching engine: it automatically tries to search for a “magic bullet” solution to every problem. That is: for every problem, no matter how complex, the human brain always assumes there’s only one, single cause.

        Now, normally, that’s true when the problem is a simple one. The principle of cause and effect generally means that cause A leads to effect B. However, in complex systems, cause A can lead to effects B and C, which lead to effects D-F, and so on… The problem then presents itself when some people can’t understand how some problems have more than one cause, and, thusly, more than one solution, especially when a problem has to be solved with more than one solution at once and/or over time, repeatedly and even regularly.

    • scratchee@feddit.ukEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      Is there a difference between the 2? If cancer is the main side effect of this level of radiation exposure, then being more resistant to cancer is also being more adapted to radiation.

      • Wooster@startrek.websiteEnglish
        4·
        9 months ago

        Say you did a study that discovered that folks who actively run are statistically unlikely to have respiratory issues. How much of that is because being physically active acts as a kind of preventative maintenance vs how much of that is a kind of self culling, where folks with respiratory issues are unlikely to seek exercise.

        The end result is ultimately the same, but the mechanics behind why are different.

        Is the wolves’ natural cancer resistance just kicking into over drive, or is natural selection happening?

      • gsfraley@lemmy.world
        2·
        9 months ago

        I guess it comes down to the transition point. If they’ve adapted in that they’re resistant to cancer developing or spreading in general, that has implications on what can be done to make humans resistant. If instead they’ve adapted to be less likely to get cancer from radiation levels that high, it’s less useful, since most people generally aren’t exposed to those levels.