Live data from Hacker News

Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

harvardmagazine.com

51–60 of 107 posts

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#51
I found a really excellent answer to this question in one of my university evolution textbooks [1]. The fact that men generally die sooner than woman (in humans) has been well studied and we've come to a fairly decent answer.

--

Why do people die?

The answer to this mystery has been partially solved by senescence theory (Williams, 1957). Senescence is not a specific disease, but rather the deterioration of all bodily mechanisms as organisms grow older: Senescence theory starts with an interesting observation: The power of natural selection decreases dramatically with increasing age. To understand why this occurs, consider a twenty-year-old woman and a fifty-year-old woman. Selection operates far more intensely on the younger woman, since anything that happens to her could affect most of her future reproductive years. A gene activated at age twenty that weakened a woman’s immune system, for example, could damage her entire reproductive capacity. If the same damaging gene became activated in the fifty-year-old instead, it would have almost no impact on the woman’s reproductive capacity. Selection operates only weakly on the older woman, since most or all of her reproduction has already occurred (Nesse & Williams, 1994).

Williams (1957) took this observation as a starting point and developed a pleiotropic theory of senescence. Pleiotropy is the phenomenon whereby a gene can have two or more different effects. Let’s say that there is a gene that boosts testosterone in men, causing them to be more successful in competing with other men for status early in life, such as in their twenties and thirties. But the elevated testosterone also has a negative effect later in life— increasing the risk of prostate cancer. This pleiotropic gene can be favored by selection-— that is, it increases in frequency in subsequent generations—because the early advantage in status gains for men outweighs the later cost in lowered survival due to prostate cancer. Through this pleiotropic process, we have evolved a number of genes that help us early in life but cause damaging effects later in life, when selection is weak or absent.

The pleiotropic theory of senescence helps to explain not only why our organs all wear out at roughly the same time late in life, but also why men die younger than women— roughly seven years earlier on average (Kruger & Nesse, 2006; Williams & Nesse, 1991). The effects of selection operate more strongly on men than on women because the reproductive variance of men is higher than that of women. Stated differently, most fertile women reproduce, and the maximum number of children they can have is sharply restricted— roughly twelve, for all practical purposes. Men, in contrast, can produce dozens of children or be shut out of reproduction entirely. Because men have greater variability in reproduction, selection can operate more intensely on them than on women. In particular, selection will favor genes that enable a man to compete successfully for mates early in life to be one of the few who reproduces a lot or to avoid being excluded entirely.

Selection for men’s success in mate competition will be favored, even if it means that these genes have detrimental effects on survival later in life. Even though men can and sometimes do reproduce for a longer period of time than women. Senescence theory explains why these later reproductive events will have a much smaller impact than events occurring earlier in life for men. Genes will be selected for early success in mate competition more strongly in men than in women, at the expense of genes that promote survival later. This strong selection for early advantage produces a higher proportion of pleiotropic genes that cause early death. As one researcher noted, “it seems likely that males suffer higher mortality than do females because in the past they have enjoyed higher potential reproductive success, and this has selected for traits that are positively associated with high reproductive success but at a cost of decreased survival” (Trivers. 1985, p. 314). Men, in short, are “designed” to die sooner than women, and the theory of senescence helps to solve the mystery of why.

In summary, selection is most potent early in life because any events that happen early can affect the entire span of a person’s reproductive years. As people get older, however, the power of selection weakens. In the extreme case something that happened to you in old age right before you died would likely have no effect on your reproductive capacity. This means that selection will favor adaptations that give beneficial effects early in life, even if they come with heavy costs later on. These heavy costs cumulate in old age, resulting in the deterioration of all body parts at roughly the same time. In this sense organisms can be said to be “designed” to die.

--

The authors are pushing the X-linked recessive inheritance hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-linked_recessive_inheritance , which by itself is fine but by itself does not paint the whole picture. The theory does not take into account how genes on the Y chromosome can affect the expression of other genes. For instance, a single gene on the Y chromosome can affect the expression of thousands of other genes across the whole genome.

[1] Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (4th Edition) by David Buss, pages 101-102

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#52
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The breast cancer movement was started because at the time, male-only cancers (such as prostate and testicular cancers) were getting far more funding and research, while breast cancer was essentially being ignored despite being at least an order of magnitude more common. That it's more common has probably made it easier to do research on once it gained sufficient visibility and funding.

Breast cancer was not an order of magnitude more common than prostate cancer: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21332/full#c...

Prostate cancer isn't as big of an issue fatality-wise.

Right now breast cancer has a disproportionate amount of money spent on it, but I don't think comparing it to prostate cancer is fair.

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#53

So is the second X chromosome in women supposed to be an exact copy of the first or do they differ? That's fascinating to me all by itself, and more so that some genes in the dupe can reinforce the first even though the rest of the chromosome is suppressed. EDIT: Ah, wikipedia explains that the two X chromosomes in a standard-issue woman come from the mother and paternal grandmother, and then ... "Early in embryonic…

> Being a male, I'm troubled by the fitness of the Y-chromosome over the generations. It seems to me that it can only accumulate errors and mutations.

In fact, the Y-chromosome has completely disappeared in some species [0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome#Future_evolution

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this increased cancer rates, whales should be completely consumed by cancer at a young age. However, there are few cases of whales being found to die of cancer.

Human men are pretty similar to human women, whales are kind of different. So the number of cells alone is quite a good way to differentiate men and women, not so much humans and whales.

Then it's not about gender, other than the gender being a proxy for a skewing of the "weight" of the individuals involved.

But, if the GP's hypothesis were to be empirically tested, I guess they could correct for the weight or volume of the individuals being sampled.

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#55
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Breast cancer was not an order of magnitude more common than prostate cancer: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21332/full#c...

Prostate cancer isn't as big of an issue fatality-wise. Right now breast cancer has a disproportionate amount of money spent on it, but I don't think comparing it to prostate cancer is fair.

Prostate cancer isn't as big of an issue fatality-wise.

Are you sure? It looks like they're both about 21 deaths per 100,000 people:

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#56

So is the second X chromosome in women supposed to be an exact copy of the first or do they differ? That's fascinating to me all by itself, and more so that some genes in the dupe can reinforce the first even though the rest of the chromosome is suppressed. EDIT: Ah, wikipedia explains that the two X chromosomes in a standard-issue woman come from the mother and paternal grandmother, and then ... "Early in embryonic…

Which is why human engage in mate selection and are great at multiplying. Plus innate abity to advance technology. We'll engineer ourselves to survive.

Or nuke everything, whichever comes first. Heh.

Edit: not to knock off the downvotes, if they're due, they're due. But may I enquire as to why I am being downvoted?

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#57

More money is spent on preventing cancer in women in treatment, research, and preventive medicine. Google the history of the brca gene, research and tests around it. Its quite amazing.I hope all cancer research gets the pipeline it got.

The breast cancer movement was started because at the time, male-only cancers (such as prostate and testicular cancers) were getting far more funding and research, while breast cancer was essentially being ignored despite being at least an order of magnitude more common. That it's more common has probably made it easier to do research on once it gained sufficient visibility and funding.

That being said, medicine is "new" technology.

We're advancing it pretty fast though.

Edit: not to mention the perception of females as a weaker sex. Socially, society is mirroring male behavior in terms of protection of females. It'll switch and balance itself out in due time. Historically I think makes died more often to work or war, females to sickness. Today these boundaries are blurring, but (socio)evolution is a patient turtle.

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#58

So is the second X chromosome in women supposed to be an exact copy of the first or do they differ? That's fascinating to me all by itself, and more so that some genes in the dupe can reinforce the first even though the rest of the chromosome is suppressed. EDIT: Ah, wikipedia explains that the two X chromosomes in a standard-issue woman come from the mother and paternal grandmother, and then ... "Early in embryonic…

> It seems to me that it can only accumulate errors and mutations. Except some of those mutations can be useful – some deadly, but some could be selected for as one's environment/niche shifts. That's evolution and selection in a nutshell. Not all mutations are bad and not all bad mutations are always bad.

Concrete example: Sickle cell anemia is bad, but sickle cell carriers also have protection against malaria.

Re: Why Is Cancer More Common in Men?

#60

They have more iron in their bodies.

I agree. However, most of the info. I've read comes from "health journalist" Bill Sardi. Despite the sound ideas, he is still brushed off as a crack-pot. Nevertheless, I'm betting on the "over-mineralization" theory of aging.

I doubt it will ever become accepted. People seem to like to think in terms of genetics (because that's what the "experts" talk about most of the time) and "hi-tech" dreams (e.g.nano-bots killing off cancer). Even when epigenetics is mentioned, they still get it wrong when applied to age-related illnesses.

Post reply on HN