https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9999-8573
Figures
Abstract
Chimerism is a widespread phenomenon across the tree of life. It is defined as a multicellular organism composed of cells from other genetically distinct entities. This ability to ‘tolerate’ non-self cells may be linked to susceptibility to diseases like cancer. Here we test whether chimerism is associated with cancers across obligately multicellular organisms in the tree of life. We classified 12 obligately multicellular taxa from lowest to highest chimerism levels based on the existing literature on the presence of chimerism in these species. We then tested for associations of chimerism with tumour invasiveness, neoplasia (benign or malignant) prevalence and malignancy prevalence in 11 terrestrial mammalian species. We found that taxa with higher levels of chimerism have higher tumour invasiveness, though there was no association between malignancy or neoplasia and chimerism among mammals. This suggests that there may be an important biological relationship between chimerism and susceptibility to tissue invasion by cancerous cells. Studying chimerism might help us identify mechanisms underlying invasive cancers and also could provide insights into the detection and management of emerging transmissible cancers.
Citation: Kapsetaki SE, Fortunato A, Compton Z, Rupp SM, Nour Z, Riggs-Davis S, et al. (2023) Is chimerism associated with cancer across the tree of life? PLoS ONE 18(6): e0287901. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287901
Editor: Michael Schubert, Laboratoire de Biologie du Développement de Villefranche-sur-Mer, FRANCE
Received: January 21, 2023; Accepted: June 15, 2023; Published: June 29, 2023
Copyright: © 2023 Kapsetaki et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This work was supported in part by NIH grants U54 CA217376, U2C CA233254, P01 CA91955, and R01 CA140657 as well as CDMRP Breast Cancer Research Program Award BC132057 and the Arizona Biomedical Research Commission grant ADHS18-198847. The findings, opinions and recommendations expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the universities where the research was performed or the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: We declare we do not have conflicts of interest.
Introduction
Chimerism is widespread across life
Although the concept of a chimera derives from a Greek mythological monster with a lion’s head, a goat’s body, and a snake’s tail [1,2], chimeras are biologically real. A chimera is an obligately multicellular organism that is composed of non-clonal cells (relatedness < 1), which do not originate from mutations within the body [3–5]. Chimeric cells are cells from a different host. This can range from large scale cellular exchange to smaller amounts, called microchimerism. Chimeras exist in several taxa, from marine sponges to trees and terrestrial mammals (Tables 1 and 2).
The evolutionary road from single cells to obligate multicellularity, shows that irreversible (obligate) multicellularity only arose when cells divided clonally across the tree of life [75,76]. Such clonality allowed somatic cells to cooperate at the most extreme level, altruistically sacrificing their reproduction, due to the alignment of their genomic fitness interests with the germ cells and other somatic cells. Chimeric cells, due to their non-clonality, are expected to have incompletely aligned fitness interests with other cells in the obligately multicellular body [75–77]. These unaligned fitness interests and other interacting ecological factors can lead to conflict among cells [75,76,78–81], which can include overproliferation, avoiding apoptosis and other forms of cheating among cells that can lead to fatal cancers [77,82,83]. For example, detection of Y chromosomes in the mother (male microchimerism) has been associated with a higher risk of developing colon cancer [84]. However, male microchimerism has also been associated with a decreased risk of developing breast cancer [84]. When non-self cells appear, self/non-self-recognising systems, often in the form of immune cells, destroy the foreign/non-relatives [85,86]. This is why, in organ transplantations, it is necessary to give immunosuppressive drugs to the host, otherwise, the immune system almost always rejects the transplant [87–89].
The existence of chimeras challenges the traditional view that clonality is critical to obligate multicellularity [75–77]. Chimeras also appear to break the traditional laws of inheritance [90]. Mendel saw that traits can be inherited strictly through the passage of parental traits in the germline creating the zygote [91]. Since then, people have discovered that somatic cells are routinely transmitted from one generation to the next via the placenta, generating microchimerism [46,47,92]. Transplanted cells can also become the germline, as was seen in a patient who received a bone marrow transplant where after four years, 100% of his semen DNA derived from the donor [93]. Similarly, in the colonial tunicate Botryllus schlosseri, when different colonies fuse forming a chimera, the germ cells of one colony can replace the germ cells of another colony, a phenomenon known as germ cell parasitism [94–96].
Obligate chimerism and cancer have common hallmarks
Cancers are composed of genetically and/or epigenetically mutated cells that invade other tissues and/or organs in the body [97–99]. Cancer cells can even invade other hosts, such as humans [100–103], Tasmanian devils, Syrian hamsters, dogs, clams, and molluscs as intraspecies or interspecies transmissible cancers [104–110]. Across different types of cancers we see similar phenotypes called hallmarks of cancer [111]. Cancers and chimerism share some of these hallmarks. Cancer cells can evade immune destruction [112–115]; chimeric cells can too [47,116]. For instance, transmissible cancers are linked with loss of diversity in the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), low expression of MHC antigens, in other words immunological invisibility, and appear to be boundless in terms of the intraspecific hosts they can invade (e.g., 4,000–8,500 year old distribution of Canine Transmissible Venereal Tumours across 43 countries) [117]. The membrane protein CD200 inhibits natural killer cell responses to cancer, facilitates graft tolerance in humans and mice, and is highly expressed on transmissible devil facial tumour cells [118]. Also, both cancer cells and chimeric endothelial progenitor fetal cells can induce angiogenesis and activate invasion [47,111,119–122]. Chimeric fetal cells have been found in several tumours in mothers [123–126]. Furthermore, chimeric fetal cells are more often found in cancerous than healthy tissue [127–129]. Genetic differences among cells can lead to conflict over limited resources, and overproliferation of one cell type over the other [77]. This may be happening when allografts or xenografts lead to hyperplasias in sea cucumbers, sea stars, and sponges [26,130,131], and interspecific crosses can lead to cancer in plants [111,132].
Investigating associations between chimerism levels and cancer across species
It is clear that chimerism exists, but it has not been systematically studied in relation to susceptibility to cancer. In this study we use literature resources and zoological data across the tree of life to: (1) organise taxa according to their highest level of chimerism observed; and (2) test whether there is a positive association between the highest level of chimerism observed in an obligately multicellular taxon and the highest level of tumour invasiveness observed in those taxa. Within mammals, we also investigated whether chimerism was associated with neoplasia (benign or malignant) prevalence and malignancy prevalence. Due to the limited experimental data on tumour invasiveness in non-vertebrates in the literature, we classified the data relative to lineages representing broad taxa (from subphyla to subkingdoms) including: Vertebrata (vertebrates), Tunicata (tunicates), Protostomia (protostomes), Placozoa (placozoans), Ctenophora (comb jellies), Porifera (sponges), Echinodermata (echinoderms), Cnidaria (cnidarians), Porifera (sponges), Ascomycota (sac fungi), Embryophyta (land plants), Rhodophyta (red algae). We chose these taxa based on an existing phylogeny of tumour invasiveness across taxa [111]. We hypothesised that chimerism is positively associated with cancers across the tree of life.
Results
Tumour invasiveness is positively correlated with chimerism across the tree of life
We classified tumour invasiveness on a scale from no cancer or no cancer-like growth, cancer-like growth, cancer, to transmissible cancers. We found that across 12 obligately multicellular taxa, the highest level of tumour invasiveness observed in a taxon is positively correlated with the highest level of chimerism observed in a taxon. In other words, in obligately multicellular taxa that accept foreign cells from different species, higher tumour invasiveness will be observed (Table 1; Figs 1 and 2; PGLS analysis: F-statistic = 6.02 on 1 and 10 DF, ML lambda = 1, R2 = 0.37, slope = 0.67, P-value = 0.03).
Red bars show the highest level of tumour invasiveness observed in each taxon, from low to high tumour invasiveness (no cancer observed, cancer/cancer-like phenomena, cancer, transmissible cancer). Black bars show the highest chimerism level observed in each taxon, from low to high chimerism (no chimerism observed, accepts cells from a close relative e.g., mother or twin, accepts cells from the same species other than a close relative, accepts cells from different species). The phylogenetic tree was created using the Time Tree of Life (http://timetree.org/). Images show example species in each taxon (images from http://phylopic.org/). The time bar shows millions of years (MY).
We show each taxon with a flask, a globe, or both, according to whether it consists of experimental chimeras (flask), natural chimeras (globe), or both. We use minimal jitter to better visualise individual taxa.
Types and duration of chimeras.
Acceptance of foreign cells has been seen either as foreign cells existing inside species naturally, or species not rejecting graft tissue, or both (Tables 1 and S1). We have classified chimeras in these 12 obligately multicellular taxa as natural, experimentally-induced, or both (Tables 1 and S1; Fig 2). Seven taxa have been found to tolerate experimentally-induced chimeras. Only Basidiomycota exhibit evidence of just natural chimeras, and four taxa show evidence of both experimentally-induced and natural chimeras (Tables 1 and S1; Fig 2).
The length of time graft cells can survive in hosts varies from a few days to a lifetime, depending on the taxon. Graft cells have been found in many sites including the gonads, intestinal tissue, and meristem in plants (Tables 1 and S1). Chimerism has been reported early in development in two taxa, later in development in two taxa, both early and late in development in five taxa, and no information about developmental timing of chimerism is reported in three taxa (Table 1).
Chimerism levels in terrestrial vs. aquatic taxa
Among the examined 12 obligately multicellular taxa, there was no significant correlation between chimerism levels and species being terrestrial vs. aquatic. In other words, obligately multicellular lineages that evolved on land did not have significantly different levels of chimerism than obligately multicellular taxa that evolved in water (S1 Fig).
Chimerism does not explain the variance in malignancy and neoplasia prevalence across terrestrial mammals
We searched within mammalian species to see whether malignancy prevalence and neoplasia prevalence are correlated with chimerism levels. We found that the highest chimerism level observed does not explain a significant amount of variance in malignancy prevalence or neoplasia prevalence (Fig 3; PGLS analysis; malignancy prevalence: F-statistic = 0.34 on 2 and 8 DF, ML lambda = 0.00006, R2 = 0.2, P-value = 0.71; neoplasia prevalence: F-statistic = 0.48 on 2 and 8 DF, ML lambda = 0.99, R2 = 0.19, P-value = 0.63). The majority of these mammalian chimeras are developmentally young, immunosuppressed and/or inbred. Across the literature, eleven species are experimentally-induced chimeras, four species are natural chimeras, and three species including humans are both experimentally-induced and natural chimeras (Tables 2 and S2).
Red shows the malignancy prevalence of each species. Pink shows the benign neoplasm prevalence of each species. Red together with pink show total neoplasia prevalence. In the case of adult humans, we only show their malignancy prevalence from https://ourworldindata.org, as we do not have data on their benign neoplasm prevalence. Black bars show the highest chimerism level observed in each species, from low to high chimerism (no chimerism observed, accepts cells from a close relative e.g., mother or twin, accepts cells from the same species other than close a relative, accepts cells from different species). The phylogenetic tree was created using the Time Tree of Life (http://timetree.org/). We obtained images of species from http://phylopic.org/. Time bar shows millions of years (MY).
The period of time that the foreign cells survive in the host varies from 179 days in the Hamadryas baboon to a lifetime in humans. Graft cells have been found in many locations in the host, including the brain, spleen, liver, heart, pancreas, blood, and the thymus, depending on the species (Tables 2 and S2).
Based on the current literature, chimerism has been reported early in development in nine mammalian species, later in development in three species, both early and late in development in five species, and no data on the developmental timing of chimerism were available in the rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus (Table 2).
Discussion
Chimerism has been observed across a wide variety of species and appears in a variety of forms (Tables 1 and 2). We found that higher levels of chimerism are positively correlated with tumour invasiveness across 12 obligately multicellular taxa on the tree of life (Figs 1 and 2; Tables 1 and S1). We did not find a significant association between chimerism and malignancy prevalence or neoplasia prevalence among terrestrial mammals (Fig 3).
This association of chimerism with tumour invasiveness might be a result of similar underlying mechanisms that allow chimeric and cancerous cells to flourish inside hosts. This is consistent with several observations in the literature including common clinical signs between chimeric and cancer cells [47,111], hybrid crosses between different species of plants leading to cancerous growth [132], and even cell ploidy levels positively correlating with tumour invasiveness [133,134].
Ecology may influence chimerism
Chimerism may also depend on the environment. Recent research shows that lineages forming non-clonal multicellular groups are more common in terrestrial environments, whereas lineages forming clonal groups are more common in aquatic environments [78,135,136]. This suggests we might expect to find more cases of chimeric cells that disrupt the cohesiveness of the multicellular community of cooperating cells in terrestrial environments. However, we did not find that obligately multicellular taxa that evolved on land had higher levels of chimerism than obligately multicellular taxa that evolved in water (S1 Fig). This could be because we restricted the definition of chimerism to obligately multicellular organisms, whereas Fisher et al. [78] restricted the definition of chimerism, i.e. non-clonal group formation, to facultatively multicellular organisms.
Limitations & future directions
There are several limitations in this study. A primary limitation is the lack of data. We were only able to perform correlations using 12 obligately multicellular taxa across the tree of life (Fig 1) and 11 out of the 12 terrestrial mammalian species shown in Fig 3 (excluding humans due to the absence of relevant malignancy and neoplasia prevalence data). These large taxa likely include species with different degrees of chimerism. Additionally, there is likely a sampling bias in the degree of chimerism that has been observed. We are more likely to have observed chimerism, and higher levels of chimerism in species that have been studied more and for a longer period per experiment, compared to species for which there have been few studies. Thus, our analysis is just a first, imprecise view of the relationship between chimerism and cancer. Future studies would benefit from testing for both spontaneous and experimentally induced chimerism with consistent methodologies, across many more species. Such studies would also benefit from collecting more necropsies in those species (ideally in wild animals) for more accurate estimates of cancer prevalence.
Not all obligate chimeras are strictly chimeric throughout their lifetime and this creates additional confusion in the definition of multicellular species. Some chimeras keep chimeric cells only for a few days or months, while others for a lifetime (Tables 1 and 2). Some of this observed variation may be due to methodological differences among experiments (Tables 1 and 2), but other aspects of this variation are likely the result of biological differences among species, including differences in immunological barriers [137,138]. The specific immunological barriers that determine whether a graft will be accepted and/or passed to the next generation are largely unknown across species. For example, only recently have scientists found that chimeric cells can invade the germline of humans [93]. This reminds us that an individual may not be as defined as we think [76,77,139–141]. The tips of a phylogenetic tree may be a single species or even a chimera of two or more species [29,142]. In other words, according to Ford Doolittle, “the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.” [143].
For some species and higher taxonomic groups in our dataset, we know that there are chimeras early and/or late in development (Tables 1 and 2). We have too few species and higher taxonomic groups, however, to perform a powerful statistical analysis comparing chimerism levels between these different stages of development. Early embryonic development, pregnancy, and old age are times when the immune system is relatively weak. Working in a period when humanity was in desperate need for transplants for the injured, during and after World War II, Nobel Prize winner Peter Medawar et al. showed that immunological individuality is “a property that comes into being during the course of development” [144]. “The chick, before the eighteenth day of incubation, is almost indiscriminately hospitable” to extrinsic agents, 29 among 188 chickens that received a graft from a different individual “on the day of hatching or within a few days thereafter” could keep it almost indefinitely, but there is “progressive decay, with increasing age, of the power of an antigenic stimulus to confer tolerance.” [145–148]. Therefore, we would expect species to have a higher susceptibility in receiving and accepting chimeric cells during those vulnerable times of early development, pregnancy, and old age. Future studies should determine which developmental stage individuals can accept related/foreign cells.
Finally, we lack information on the molecular mechanisms behind the association between chimerism and tumour invasiveness for any given species. A molecular in vitro and in vivo approach would be useful to detect and track chimeric cells over several generations [149], identify whether and when they become cancerous, determine if the same pathways are used to reject chimeric and cancerous cells, and test whether their degree of invasiveness depends on the level of chimerism.
Conclusions
The results of this study are a promising first step in understanding the origins of chimerism and have implications for the discovery and study of transmissible cancers. We hypothesise that species that are the most accepting of chimeric cells are also the species most likely to harbour transmissible cancers. Since chimerism and cancer have common hallmarks, such as evading immune destruction [112–116], inducing angiogenesis, and activating invasion [47,111,119–122], by finding the mechanisms that chimeric cells use to invade other organisms we may find the mechanisms that transmissible cancer cells use to invade other organisms and thus design drugs to target those pathways.
Methods
Chimerism
To find chimeras across the tree of life, we searched the Web of Science, StarPlus, Google Scholar, JStor, and Mendeley using the keywords transplantation, immune tolerance, immune development, microchimerism, genetic mosaicism, grafting, chimerism, chimera, chimaera, chimeric hybrids, obligate chimerism, homografts, allografts, xenografts, fusion, coalescence. We specifically looked for chimerism in 12 obligately multicellular taxa for which we knew their highest levels of tumour invasiveness (vertebrata, tunicata, protostomia, placozoa, ctenophora, echinodermata, cnidaria, porifera, basidiomycota, ascomycota, embryophyta, and rhodophyta) [107,111,150] (Table 1), and in 18 terrestrial mammalian species (Table 2) for which we had data on malignancy prevalence and neoplasia prevalence.
We define chimera as an obligately multicellular organism composed of non-clonal cells not originating from mutations within the organism. Therefore by this definition, we exclude the following examples: non-genetically-examined chimeric fossil records, epigenetic phenotypic chimeras, facultative chimeras (e.g., an organism with its microbiome, including the fungome and virome), genetically modified organisms (GMOs), chimeras originating from a chimeric zygote by the fusion of two sperms with an egg (e.g. [151,152]), hybrids, epigenetic polymorphisms, conjoined twins, interspecific embryo transfers without having tested for microchimerism, multinucleated cells in fungi and red algae, plant chimeras originating from mutations within the organism during development, chimeric cells that are transmissible cancers, chimeric antibodies, no chimerism studies performed in a particular species.
Levels of chimerism
We categorised organisms into different levels of chimerism from lowest to highest, as no chimerism (0), accepts cells from a close relative (e.g., twin or mother) (1), accepts cells from the same species other than a close relative (2), and accepts cells from different species (3). We restricted these data only to cases of obligately multicellular organisms accepting cells and maintaining them beyond reproductive age, if reported. If there was variation in the level of chimerism among literature in a taxon, we classified that taxon according to the highest level of chimerism reported for that taxon.
Coding of chimerism levels
We recruited three biology/psychology undergraduates from Arizona State University to code the examples of highest levels of chimerism the lead author found in the existing literature into the categories described above. We gave each individual a spreadsheet with: (1) the definition of chimerism (“An obligately multicellular organism composed of non-clonal cells not originating from mutations within the organism.”); (2) a list of examples that are not chimeras (“facultative multicellular organisms, genetic hybrids (e.g., mule), epigenetic polymorphisms, conjoined twins, missing fossil evidence”); (3) the genus names/clade/division of the organisms in our database; (4) an empty column for the individuals to write the highest level of chimerism observed in each taxon; (5) a list of literature and advice to search for more examples in the literature; (6) empty columns for the individuals to complete whether experiments were performed early or later in development, and whether chimerism was natural or experimentally-induced; and (7) an empty column for the individuals to write notes or comments. The individuals completed the task within three weeks. The final highest chimerism level for each taxon that we report in this article is based on the “highest level of chimerism observed” score given by the majority of coders. For example, if among us the “highest level of chimerism observed” we gave for a taxon was 1, 1, 1, 2 (one score from each of the three undergraduate coders and the lead author), then the final “highest level of chimerism observed” for that taxon is 1. If one level did not dominate (e.g., 1, 1, 2, 2), then the lead author read additional literature, and decided what was the most correct “highest level of chimerism observed” for that taxon. Finally, while revising the manuscript, A.F. proof-read these scores based on the literature.
Tumour invasiveness
S.E.K. collected tumour invasiveness data for 12 obligately multicellular taxa: vertebrata, tunicata, protostomia, placozoa, ctenophora, echinodermata, cnidaria, porifera, basidiomycota, ascomycota, embryophyta, and rhodophyta [107,111,150]. In order to create a scale of tumour invasiveness, S.E.K. classified tumour invasiveness from lowest to highest, as no cancer/cancer-like growth detected (0) (in studies that sought to find cancer/cancer-like growth), cancer-like growth (1), cancer (2), and transmissible cancer (3). If there was variation in the level of tumour invasiveness among species in a taxon, S.E.K. classified that taxon according to the highest level of tumour invasiveness found in any species of that taxon.
Malignancy and neoplasia prevalence data collection
Within mammals, there was not enough variation in tumour invasiveness levels across the 18 mammalian species in our dataset in order to conduct a powerful analysis within this class, so we examined the malignancy prevalence and neoplasia prevalence of each mammalian species instead. We obtained malignancy prevalence and neoplasia prevalence data across dozens of terrestrial mammalian species. These data are from animals in zoos, aquariums, and/or private veterinary practices. Neoplasia includes benign or malignant tumours. Malignancy prevalence or neoplasia prevalence refers to the total malignant records of a species including non-neoplasia records or neoplasia records excluding non-neoplasia records, divided by the total records with denominators, respectively. Total records with denominators refer to data where we know the population size of a species from databases where non-neoplasia records are also available. We only used species for which we had ≥20 necropsies (supporting data). We excluded cancer records from wild animals. We also excluded infancy records from this database as there is usually high infant mortality across species that is not due to cancer. We excluded malignancy and neoplasia prevalence data for adult humans (https://ourworldindata.org) from our analyses because the malignancy and neoplasia data from animals under human care are collected from necropsies whereas the malignancy data in https://ourworldindata.org are not collected from necropsies, and because we do not have an estimate of benign prevalence in adult humans.
Phylogenetic tree construction
To create a phylogenetic tree of the 12 obligately multicellular taxa across the tree of life and 11 mammalian species with more than ≥20 necropsies in our database, we used the Time Tree of Life (http://timetree.org/). At the end of the tips we placed chimeric taxa based on the majority of cells of that chimera. For example, if there was a sheep-human chimera of which the majority of cells were sheep cells and the minority human cells, we would place that species on a tip as a sheep, in order to make the phylogenetic tree.
Statistical analyses
We performed all analyses in R version 4.0.5 [153]. To compare the association between highest tumour invasiveness, malignancy prevalence or neoplasia prevalence and highest chimerism levels, we used the R packages CAPER [154], phytools [155], geiger [156], tidyverse [157], and powerAnalysis (https://github.com/cran/powerAnalysis), and performed a phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS) model which takes into account the phylogenetic non-independence between taxa. In the analyses where the dependent variable was malignancy prevalence or neoplasia prevalence, we used a PGLS model weighted by 1/(square root of the number of necropsies per species) (from Revell [155]).
We first made two trees (phyl file); one including the above mentioned 12 obligately multicellular taxa across the tree of life and one with the 11 mammalian species, using the NCBI Tree creator (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/CommonTree/wwwcmt.cgi).
In the PGLS analyses of 12 obligately multicellular taxa across the tree of life, we set the variables highest tumour invasiveness levels (0, 1, 2, 3), and highest level of chimerism observed (0, 1, 2, 3), as numerical variables. When comparing malignancy prevalence, neoplasia prevalence and the highest level of chimerism observed across terrestrial mammalian species, we set malignancy prevalence and neoplasia prevalence as a dependent numerical variable and the highest level of chimerism observed as an independent categorical variable. The linear PGLS model was originally designed for continuous variables, however Graber [158] compared the statistical performance of different ordinal response models, and together with Matthews et al. [159] recommend using the PGLS model even when treating ordinal scaled variables as continuous.
Supporting information
S1 Fig. Taxa that originated on land do not have higher chimerism levels than taxa that originated in water (PGLS analysis, P-value > 0.05).
An analysis across 12 obligately multicellular taxa on the tree of life. If a taxon includes both aquatic and terrestrial species, we have labelled that taxon according to its driest environment, i.e. terrestrial. We show each taxon with a flask, a globe, or both, according to whether it includes experimental chimeras, natural chimeras, or both, respectively. We use minimal jitter to improve visibility of individual taxa.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287901.s001
(TIF)
S1 Table. Examples of chimerism across 12 obligately multicellular taxa.
In the majority of cases in the literature, species reject foreign cells. The references are available in the reference list in the main article. The list of references in this table is not exhaustive since we do not mention here all the examples of graft rejection reported in the literature. The examples of chimerism in this table are rare examples of graft/foreign cell acceptance, if reported, in the literature.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287901.s002
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Examples of chimerism in 18 mammalian species.
In the majority of cases in the literature, species reject foreign cells. The references are available in the reference list in the main article. The list of references in the table is not exhaustive since we do not mention here all the examples of graft rejection reported in the literature. The examples of chimerism in this table are rare examples of graft/foreign cell acceptance, if reported, in the literature. EGFP: Enhanced green fluorescent protein; cGY: Centigray; Tg cells: A subset of T cells with a receptor for immunoglobulin G; HSC: Hematopoietic stem cells; DLA: Dog leucocyte antigen.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287901.s003
(DOCX)
S1 Data. The data across taxa used in this manuscript.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287901.s005
(XLSX)
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the pathologists, veterinarians, and staff at the zoos and private veterinary practices for contributing to the data collection by diagnosing malignancy prevalence and neoplasia prevalence. We would like to acknowledge the following institutions: Akron Zoo, Atlanta Zoo, Audubon Nature Institute, Bergen County Zoo, Birmingham Zoo, Buffalo Zoo, Capron Park Zoo, Central Florida Zoo, Dallas Zoo, El Paso Zoo, Elmwood Park Zoo, Fort Worth Zoo, Gladys Porter Zoo, Greensboro Science Center, Henry Doorly Zoo, Utah’s Hogle Zoo, Jacksonville Zoo, John Ball Zoo, Los Angeles Zoo, Louisville Zoo, Mesker Park Zoo, Miami Zoo, Oakland Zoo, Oklahoma City Zoo, Philadelphia Zoo, Phoenix Zoo, Pueblo Zoo, San Antonio Zoo, Santa Ana Zoo, Santa Barbara Zoo, Sedgwick County Zoo, Seneca Park Zoo, The Brevard Zoo, The Detroit Zoo, The Oregon Zoo, and Toledo Zoo. Thank you to Michael Garner for his help in collecting and diagnosing some of the malignancy and neoplasia data. Thank you also to William Cross, David Quammen, Michael Edwards, Valerie Harris, the Arizona Cancer & Evolution team, and the Murchison group, for helpful comments.
References
- 1.
Homer. The Iliad. Penguin Books; 1987.
- 2.
Hesiod. Theogony: And, Works and Days. University of Michigan Press; 2006.
- 3. Normark BB. The strange case of the armored scale insect and its bacteriome. PLoS Biol. 2004;2: e43. pmid:15024412
- 4. Rinkevich B. Will two walk together, except they have agreed? Amos 3: 3. J Evol Biol. 2004;17: 1178–1179. pmid:15525397
- 5. Rinkevich B. Quo vadis chimerism? Chimerism. 2011;2: 1–5. pmid:21547028
- 6. Casso M, Tagliapietra D, Turon X, Pascual M. High fusibility and chimera prevalence in an invasive colonial ascidian. Sci Rep. 2019;9: 15673. pmid:31666562
- 7. Maier E, Buckenmaier A, Tollrian R, Nürnberger B. Intracolonial genetic variation in the scleractinian coral Seriatopora hystrix. Coral Reefs. 2012. pp. 505–517.
- 8. Barki Y, Gateño D, Graur D, Rinkevich B. Soft-coral natural chimerism: a window in ontogeny allows the creation of entities comprised of incongruous parts. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2002;231: 91–99.
- 9. Puill-Stephan E, Willis BL, van Herwerden L, van Oppen MJH. Chimerism in wild adult populations of the broadcast spawning coral Acropora millepora on the Great Barrier Reef. PLoS One. 2009;4: e7751. pmid:19888471
- 10. Mercier A, Sun Z, Hamel JF. Internal brooding favours pre-metamorphic chimerism in a non-colonial cnidarian, the sea anemone Urticina felina. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2011;278: 3517–3522.
- 11. Little FJ jun. Bispecific chimerid sponges from the antarctic. Nature. 1966;211: 436–438.
- 12. Blanquer A, Uriz M-J. “Living together apart”: the hidden genetic diversity of sponge populations. Mol Biol Evol. 2011;28: 2435–2438. pmid:21498599
- 13. Peabody RB, Peabody DC, Sicard KM. A genetic mosaic in the fruiting stage of Armillaria gallica. Fungal Genet Biol. 2000;29: 72–80. pmid:10919376
- 14. Stoner DS, Rinkevich B, Weissman IL. Heritable germ and somatic cell lineage competitions in chimeric colonial protochordates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 1999;96: 9148–9153. pmid:10430910
- 15. Rinkevich B, Yankelevich I. Environmental split between germ cell parasitism and somatic cell synergism in chimeras of a colonial urochordate. J Exp Biol. 2004;207: 3531–3536. pmid:15339949
- 16. Simon-Blecher N, Achituv Y, Rinkevich B. Protochordate concordant xenotransplantation settings reveal outbreaks of donor cells and divergent life span traits. Dev Comp Immunol. 2004;28: 983–991. pmid:15236929
- 17. Rinkevich B, Weissman LL. Chimeras in colonial invertebrates: A synergistic symbiosis or somatic- and germ-cell parasitism? 1987 [cited 27 Mar 2021]. Available: https://dalspace.library.dal.ca/bitstream/handle/10222/76964/VOLUME%204-NUMBERS%201-2-3-1987-PAGE%20117.pdf?sequence=1.
- 18. Rinkevich B, Tartakover S, Gershon H. Contribution of morula cells to allogeneic responses in the colonial urochordate Botryllus schlosseri. Mar Biol. 1998;131: 227–236.
- 19. Sullivan JT, Andrews JA, Currie RT. Heterotopic Heart Transplants in Biomphalaria glabrata (Mollusca: Pulmonata): Fate of Allografts. Trans Am Microsc Soc. 1992;111: 1.
- 20. Sullivan JT, Weir GO, Brammer SR. Heterotopic heart transplants in Biomphalaria glabrata (Mollusca: Pulmonata). Fate of congeneric xenografts. Dev Comp Immunol. 1993;17: 467–474. pmid:8299845
- 21. McGinty EL, Evans BS, Taylor JUUU, Jerry DR. Xenografts and pearl production in two pearl oyster species, P. maxima and P. margaritifera: effect on pearl quality and a key to understanding genetic contribution. Aquaculture. 2010;302: 175–181.
- 22. Blay C, Planes S, Ky C-LL. Crossing phenotype heritability and candidate gene expression in grafted black-lipped pearl oyster Pinctada margaritifera, an animal chimera. J Hered. 2018;109: 510–519. pmid:29584922
- 23. Ruthmann A, Terwelp U. Disaggregation and reaggregation of cells of the primitive metazoon Trichoplax adhaerens. Differentiation. 1979;13: 185–198.
- 24. Coonfield BR. SYMMETRY AND REGULATION IN MNEMIOPSIS LEIDYI, AGASSIZ. Biol Bull. 1937;72: 299–310.
- 25. Coonfield BR. APICAL DOMINANCE AND POLARITY IN MNEMIOPSIS LEIDYI, AGASSIZ. Biol Bull. 1936;70: 460–471.
- 26. Hildemann WH, Dix TG. Transplantation reactions of tropical Australian echinoderms. Transplantation. 1972;14: 624–633. pmid:4563201
- 27. Karp RD, Hildemann WH. Specific allograft reactivity in the sea star Dermasterias imbricata. Transplantation. 1976;22: 434–439. pmid:793101
- 28. Varadarajan J, Karp RD. Histological versus morphological assessment of graft rejection in invertebrates. Transplantation. 1983;35: 629–630. pmid:6868122
- 29. Lee H-T, Campbell RD. DEVELOPMENT AND BEHAVIOR OF AN INTERGENERIC CHIMERA OF HYDRA (PELMATOHYDRA OLIGACTIS INTERSTITIAL CELLS: HYDRA ATTENUATA EPITHELIAL CELLS). Biol Bull. 1979;157: 288–296.
- 30. Sarà M, Liaci L, Melone N. Bispecific cell aggregation in sponges. Nature. 1966;210: 1167–1168.
- 31. Wilson HV. ON SOME PHENOMENA OF COALESCENCE AND REGENERATION IN SPONGES. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society. 1907;23: 161–174.
- 32. Maldonado M. Do chimeric sponges have improved chances of survival? Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1998;164: 301–306.
- 33. Sarà M, Liaci L, Melone N. Mixed Cell Aggregation between Sponges and the Anthozoan Anemonia sulcata. Nature. 1966;210: 1168–1169.
- 34. Bastiaans E, Debets AJM, Aanen DK. Experimental demonstration of the benefits of somatic fusion and the consequences for allorecognition. Evolution. 2015;69: 1091–1099. pmid:25688421
- 35. Roper M, Simonin A, Hickey PC, Leeder A, Glass NL. Nuclear dynamics in a fungal chimera. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110: 12875–12880. pmid:23861490
- 36. Neilson-Jones W. Plant chimeras. Plant Chimeras. 1969. Available: https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19710308028.
- 37. Marcotrigiano M, Gouin FR. Experimentally synthesized plant chimeras 2. A comparison of in vitro and in vivo techniques for the production of interspecific Nicotiana chimeras. Ann Bot. 1984;54: 513–521.
- 38. Jørgensen CA, Crane MB. Formation and morphology ofSolanum chimaeras. J Genet. 1927;18: 247–273.
- 39. Carlson P, Smith H, Dearing R. Fertile interspecific hybridization cell fusion for higher plants. Google Patents; 1974.
- 40. Marcotrigiano M, Gouin FR, Marcotrigianofandf M, Gouin R. Experimentally synthesized plant chimeras I. In vitro recovery of Nicotiana tabacum L. chimeras from mixed callus cultures. Ann Bot. 1984;54: 503–511.
- 41. Santelices B, González AV, Beltrán J, Flores V. Coalescing red algae exhibit noninvasive, reversible chimerism. J Phycol. 2017;53: 59–69. pmid:27716922
- 42. Picus J, Aldrich WR, Letvin NL. A naturally occurring bone-marrow-chimeric primate. I. Integrity of its immune system. Transplantation. 1985;39: 297–303. pmid:3156438
- 43. Owen RD. Immunogenetic consequences of vascular anastomoses between bovine twins. Science. 1945;102: 400–401. pmid:17755278
- 44. Axiak-Bechtel SM, Kumar SR, Hansen SA, Bryan JN. Y-chromosome DNA Is Present in the Blood of Female Dogs Suggesting the Presence of Fetal Microchimerism. Anderson ML, editor. PLoS One. 2013;8: e68114. pmid:23861856
- 45. Van Dijk BA, Boomsma DI, De Man AJM. Blood Group Chimerism in Human Multiple Births Is Not Rare. 1996 pp. 264–268.
- 46. Barinaga M. Cells exchanged during pregnancy live on. American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2002.
- 47. Boddy AM, Fortunato A, Wilson Sayres M, Aktipis A. Fetal microchimerism and maternal health: A review and evolutionary analysis of cooperation and conflict beyond the womb. Bioessays. 2015;37: 1106–1118. pmid:26316378
- 48. Nelson JL. Microchimerism: incidental byproduct of pregnancy or active participant in human health? Trends Mol Med. 2002;8: 109–113. pmid:11879770
- 49. Signer EN, Anzenberger G, Jeffreys AJ. Chimaeric and constitutive DNA fingerprints in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus). Primates. 2000;41: 49–61. pmid:30545191
- 50.
Vandeplassche M, Podliachouk L, Beaud R. Chimerism in horses. XIth European Conference on Animal Blood Groups and Biochemical Polymorphism. Springer; 1970. pp. 459–462.
- 51. Bakkour S, Baker CAR, Tarantal AF, Wen L, Busch MP, Lee T-H, et al. Analysis of maternal microchimerism in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) using real-time quantitative PCR amplification of MHC polymorphisms. Chimerism. 2014;5: 6–15. pmid:24451553
- 52. Colson YL, Zadach K, Nalesnik M, Ildstad ST. Mixed allogeneic chimerism in the rat. Donor-specific transplantation tolerance without chronic rejection for primarily vascularized cardiac allografts. Transplantation. 1995;60: 971–980. pmid:7491703
- 53. Klassen H, Lund RD. Retinal graft-mediated pupillary responses in rats: restoration of a reflex function in the mature mammalian brain. Journal of Neuroscience. 1990;10: 578–587. pmid:2303861
- 54. Klassen H, Lund RD. Anatomical and behavioral correlates of a xenograft-mediated pupillary reflex. Exp Neurol. 1988;102: 102–108. pmid:2846337
- 55. Muotri AR, Nakashima K, Toni N, Sandler VM, Gage FH. Development of functional human embryonic stem cell-derived neurons in mouse brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102: 18644–18648. pmid:16352714
- 56. Wegmann TG, Gilman JG. Chimerism for three genetic systems in tetraparental mice. Dev Biol. 1970;21: 281–291. pmid:4985378
- 57. Flax JD, Aurora S, Yang C, Simonin C, Wills AM, Billinghurst LL, et al. Engraftable human neural stem cells respond to developmental cues, replace neurons, and express foreign genes. Nat Biotechnol. 1998;16: 1033–1039. pmid:9831031
- 58. Kreiss A, Cheng Y, Kimble F, Wells B, Donovan S, Belov K, et al. Allorecognition in the Tasmanian devil (Sarcophilus harrisii), an endangered marsupial species with limited genetic diversity. PLoS One. 2011;6: e22402. pmid:21811598
- 59. Scott CT. Chimeras in the crosshairs. Nat Biotechnol. 2006;24: 487–490. pmid:16680119
- 60. Almeida-Porada G, Porada C, Zanjani ED. Plasticity of human stem cells in the fetal sheep model of human stem cell transplantation. Int J Hematol. 2004;79: 1–6. pmid:14979471
- 61. Turin L, Invernizzi P, Woodcock M, Grati FR, Riva F, Tribbioli G, et al. Bovine fetal microchimerism in normal and embryo transfer pregnancies and its implications for biotechnology applications in cattle. Biotechnology Journal: Healthcare Nutrition Technology. 2007;2: 486–491.
- 62. Galli C, Crotti G, Notari C, Turini P, Duchi R, Lazzari G. Embryo production by ovum pick up from live donors. Theriogenology. 2001;55: 1341–1357. pmid:11327688
- 63. Ogle BM, Butters KA, Plummer TB, Ring KR, Knudsen BE, Litzow MR, et al. Spontaneous fusion of cells between species yields transdifferentiation and retroviral transfer in vivo. The FASEB journal. 2004;18: 548–550. pmid:14715691
- 64. O’Brien SJ, Roelke ME, Marker L, Newman A, Winkler CA, Meltzer D, et al. Genetic basis for species vulnerability in the cheetah. Science. 1985;227: 1428–1434. pmid:2983425
- 65. Rapaport FT, Bachvaroff RJ, Watanabe K, Hirasawa H, Mollen N, Ferrebee JW, et al. Induction of allogeneic unresponsiveness in adult dogs. Role of non-DLA histocompatibility variables in conditioning the outcome of bone marrow, kidney, and skin transplantation in radiation chimeras. J Clin Invest. 1978;61: 790–800. pmid:76636
- 66. Tillson M, Niemeyer GP, Welch JA, Brawner W, Swaim SF, Rynders P, et al. Hematopoietic chimerism induces renal and skin allograft tolerance in DLA-identical dogs. Exp Hematol. 2006;34: 1759–1770. pmid:17157174
- 67. Hisashi Y, Yamada K, Kuwaki K, Tseng Y, Dor F, Houser SL, et al. Rejection of cardiac xenografts transplanted from α1, 3‐Galactosyltransferase Gene‐Knockout (GalT‐KO) pigs to baboons. Am J Transplant. 2008;8: 2516–2526.
- 68. Calne RY, White HJ, Herbertson BM, Millard PR, Davis DR, Salaman JR, et al. Pig-to-baboon liver xenografts. Lancet. 1968;1: 1176–1178. pmid:4172293
- 69. Youssoufian H, Pyeritz RE. Mechanisms and consequences of somatic mosaicism in humans. Nat Rev Genet. 2002;3: 748–758. pmid:12360233
- 70. Starzl TE, Fung J, Tzakis A, Todo S, Demetris AJ, Marino IR, et al. Baboon-to-human liver transplantation. Lancet. 1993;341: 65–71. pmid:8093402
- 71. LaPlante ES, Burrell R, Watne AL, Taylor DL, Zimmermann B. Skin allograft studies in the pouch young of the opossum. Transplantation. 1969;7: 67–72. pmid:4883120
- 72. Vinogradova OS. Perspectives and limitations of neurotransplantation. Proceedings of the National Institute of Sciences of India, Part B: Biological Sciences. 1990. pp. 109–124.
- 73. Billingham RE, Neaves WB. Exchange of skin grafts among monozygotic quadruplets in armadillos. J Exp Zool. 1980;213: 257–260. pmid:7007568
- 74. Billingham RE, Sawchuck GH, Silvers WK. Studies on the histocompatibility genes of the Syrian hamster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1960;46: 1079. pmid:16590716
- 75. Fisher RM, Cornwallis CK, West SA. Group Formation, Relatedness, and the Evolution of Multicellularity. Curr Biol. 2013;23: 1120–1125. pmid:23746639
- 76. West SA, Fisher RM, Gardner A, Kiers ET. Major evolutionary transitions in individuality. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112: 10112–10119. pmid:25964342
- 77. Bourke AFG. Principles of social evolution. Oxford University Press Oxford; 2011.
- 78. Fisher RM, Shik JZ, Boomsma JJ. The evolution of multicellular complexity: the role of relatedness and environmental constraints. 2020;287: 20192963.
- 79.
Maynard Smith J, Szathmary E. The major transitions in evolution. Oxford; New York: W.H. Freeman Spektrum; 1995.
- 80.
Dawkins R. The extended phenotype. Oxford University Press Oxford; 1982.
- 81. Zheng C, Hu Y, Sakurai M, Pinzon-Arteaga CA, Li J, Wei Y, et al. Cell Competition Constitutes a Barrier for Interspecies Chimerism. Nature. 2021. pmid:33508854
- 82. Nunney L. Lineage selection and the evolution of multistage carcinogenesis. Proc Biol Sci. 1999;266: 493–498. pmid:10189713
- 83. Smith JM, Maynard Smith J. Group Selection and Kin Selection. Nature. 1964. pp. 1145–1147.
- 84. Kamper-Jørgensen M, Biggar RJ, Tjønneland A, Hjalgrim H, Kroman N, Rostgaard K, et al. Opposite effects of microchimerism on breast and colon cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48: 2227–2235. pmid:22397765
- 85. Sima P, Vetvicka V. Evolution of immune reactions. Crit Rev Immunol. 1993;13: 83–114. pmid:8352910
- 86. Větvička V, Šíma P. Evolutionary mechanisms of defense reactions. Springer Science & Business Media; 1998.
- 87. Bach FH, Sachs DH. Transplantation immunology. N Engl J Med. 1987;317: 489–492.
- 88. Brent L. A history of transplantation immunology. Academic Press; 1996.
- 89. Kvell K, Cooper EL, Engelmann P, Bovari J, Nemeth P. Blurring borders: innate immunity with adaptive features. Clin Dev Immunol. 2007;2007: 83671. pmid:18317532
- 90. Mendel G. Experiments in plant hybridization (1865). Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins Brünn) Available online. 1996.
- 91. Mendel G. Versuche uber Pflanzen-Hybriden. Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins in Brunn fur. 1866;4: 3–47.
- 92. Kinder JM, Stelzer IA, Arck PC, Way SS. Immunological implications of pregnancy-induced microchimerism. Nat Rev Immunol. 2017;17: 483. pmid:28480895
- 93. Long Chilton. CHIMERIC FLUIDITY: A case study of a male stem cell/bone marrow transplant patient. Presented by Chris Long and Brittney Chilton Washoe County Sheriff’s Office Forensic Science Division.; 2019.
- 94. Stoner DS, Weissman IL. Somatic and germ cell parasitism in a colonial ascidian: possible role for a highly polymorphic allorecognition system. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93: 15254–15259. pmid:8986797
- 95. Carpenter MA, Powell JH, Ishizuka KJ, Palmeri KJ, Rendulic S, De Tomaso AW. Growth and long-term somatic and germline chimerism following fusion of juvenile Botryllus schlosseri. Biol Bull. 2011;220: 57–70. pmid:21385958
- 96. Pancer Z, Gershon H, Rinkevich B. Coexistence and Possible Parasitism of Somatic and Germ Cell Lines in Chimeras of the Colonial Urochordate Botryllus schlosseri. Biol Bull. 1995;189: 106–112. pmid:27768485
- 97. Feinberg AP, Ohlsson R, Henikoff S. The epigenetic progenitor origin of human cancer. Nat Rev Genet. 2006;7: 21–33. pmid:16369569
- 98. Brandon M, Baldi P, Wallace DC. Mitochondrial mutations in cancer. Oncogene. 2006;25: 4647–4662. pmid:16892079
- 99. Lengauer C, Kinzler KW, Vogelstein B. Genetic instabilities in human cancers. Nature. 1998;396: 643–649. pmid:9872311
- 100. Dingli D, Nowak MA. Cancer biology: infectious tumour cells. Nature. 2006;443: 35–36. pmid:16957717
- 101. Tolar J, Neglia JP. Transplacental and other routes of cancer transmission between individuals. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2003;25: 430–434. pmid:12794519
- 102. Greaves M, Hughes W. Cancer cell transmission via the placenta. Evol Med Public Health. 2018;2018: 106–115. pmid:29765597
- 103. Arakawa A, Ichikawa H, Kubo T, Motoi N, Kumamoto T, Nakajima M, et al. Vaginal Transmission of Cancer from Mothers with Cervical Cancer to Infants. N Engl J Med. 2021;384: 42–50. pmid:33406329
- 104. Hawkins CE, Baars C, Hesterman H, Hocking GJ, Jones ME, Lazenby B, et al. Emerging disease and population decline of an island endemic, the Tasmanian devil Sarcophilus harrisii. Biol Conserv. 2006;131: 307–324.
- 105. Isoda T, Ford AM, Tomizawa D, van Delft FW, De Castro DG, Mitsuiki N, et al. Immunologically silent cancer clone transmission from mother to offspring. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009;106: 17882–17885. pmid:19822752
- 106. Murchison EP, Wedge DC, Alexandrov LB, Fu B, Martincorena I, Ning Z, et al. Transmissible dog cancer genome reveals the origin and history of an ancient cell lineage. Science. 2014;343: 437–440.
- 107. Metzger MJ, Reinisch C, Sherry J, Goff SP, Metzger MJ, Reinisch C, et al. Horizontal Transmission of Clonal Cancer Cells Causes Leukemia in Soft-Shell Clams Article Horizontal Transmission of Clonal Cancer Cells Causes Leukemia in Soft-Shell Clams. Cell. 2015;161: 255–263.
- 108. Metzger MJ, Villalba A, Carballal MJMJ, Iglesias D, Sherry J, Reinisch C, et al. Widespread transmission of independent cancer lineages within multiple bivalve species. Nature. 2016;534: 705–709. pmid:27338791
- 109. Das U, Das AK. Review of canine transmissible venereal sarcoma. Vet Res Commun. 2000;24: 545–556. pmid:11305746
- 110. Cooper HL, Mackay CM, Banfield WG. Chromosome studies of a contagious reticulum cell sarcoma of the Syrian hamster. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1964;33: 691–706. pmid:14220251
- 111. Aktipis AC, Boddy AM, Jansen G, Hibner U, Hochberg ME, Maley CC, et al. Cancer across the tree of life: cooperation and cheating in multicellularity. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370: 20140219–20140219. pmid:26056363
- 112. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation. Cell. 2011. pp. 646–674. pmid:21376230
- 113. Messerschmidt JL, Prendergast GC, Messerschmidt GL. How Cancers Escape Immune Destruction and Mechanisms of Action for the New Significantly Active Immune Therapies: Helping Nonimmunologists Decipher Recent Advances. Oncologist. 2016;21: 233–243. pmid:26834161
- 114. Vajdic CM, van Leeuwen MT. Cancer incidence and risk factors after solid organ transplantation. Int J Cancer. 2009;125: 1747–1754. pmid:19444916
- 115. Coley WBTAJ of TMS. THE TREATMENT OF MALIGNANT TUMORS BY REPEATED INOCULATIONS OF ERYSIPELAS: WITH A REPORT OF TEN ORIGINAL CASES.1: BIBLIOGRAPHY. Philadelphia. 1893;105: 1827.
- 116. Kolialexi A, Tsangaris GT, Antsaklis A, Mavroua A. Rapid clearance of fetal cells from maternal circulation after delivery. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004;1022: 113–118. pmid:15251948
- 117. Baez-Ortega A, Gori K, Strakova A, Allen JL, Allum KM, Bansse-Issa L, et al. Somatic evolution and global expansion of an ancient transmissible cancer lineage. Science. 2019;365: eaau9923. pmid:31371581
- 118. Flies AS, Darby JM, Lennard PR, Murphy PR, Ong CEB, Pinfold TL, et al. A novel system to map protein interactions reveals evolutionarily conserved immune evasion pathways on transmissible cancers. Science advances. 2020;6: eaba5031. pmid:32937435
- 119. Nassar D, Droitcourt C, Mathieu-d’Argent E, Kim MJ, Khosrotehrani K, Aractingi S. Fetal progenitor cells naturally transferred through pregnancy participate in inflammation and angiogenesis during wound healing. FASEB J. 2012;26: 149–157. pmid:21974929
- 120. Nguyen Huu S, Oster M, Uzan S, Chareyre F, Aractingi S, Khosrotehrani K. Maternal neoangiogenesis during pregnancy partly derives from fetal endothelial progenitor cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104: 1871–1876. pmid:17267612
- 121. Papetti M, Herman IM. Mechanisms of normal and tumor-derived angiogenesis. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2002;282: C947–70. pmid:11940508
- 122. Cimpean A-M, Ribatti D, Raica M. A brief history of angiogenesis assays. Int J Dev Biol. 2011;55: 377–382. pmid:21858762
- 123. Kallenbach LR, Johnson KL, Bianchi DW. Fetal cell microchimerism and cancer: a nexus of reproduction, immunology, and tumor biology. Cancer Res. 2011;71: 8–12. pmid:21199793
- 124. Hromadnikova I, Kotlabova K, Pirkova P, Libalova P, Vernerova Z, Svoboda B, et al. The Occurrence of Fetal Microchimeric Cells in Endometrial Tissues Is a Very Common Phenomenon in Benign Uterine Disorders, and the Lower Prevalence of Fetal Microchimerism Is Associated with Better Uterine Cancer Prognoses. DNA and Cell Biology. 2014. pp. 40–48. pmid:24283364
- 125. Dubernard G, Aractingi S, Oster M, Rouzier R, Mathieu M-C, Uzan S, et al. Breast cancer stroma frequently recruits fetal derived cells during pregnancy. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10: R14. pmid:18271969
- 126. Dubernard G, Oster M, Chareyre F, Antoine M, Rouzier R, Uzan S, et al. Increased fetal cell microchimerism in high grade breast carcinomas occurring during pregnancy. Int J Cancer. 2009;124: 1054–1059. pmid:19065666
- 127. Srivatsa B, Srivatsa S, Johnson KL, Samura O, Lee SL, Bianchi DW. Microchimerism of presumed fetal origin in thyroid specimens from women: a case-control study. Lancet. 2001;358: 2034–2038. pmid:11755610
- 128. Cirello V, Recalcati MP, Muzza M, Rossi S, Perrino M, Vicentini L, et al. Fetal cell microchimerism in papillary thyroid cancer: a possible role in tumor damage and tissue repair. Cancer Res. 2008;68: 8482–8488. pmid:18922922
- 129. O’Donoghue K, Sultan HA, Al-Allaf FA, Anderson JR, Wyatt-Ashmead J, Fisk NM. Microchimeric fetal cells cluster at sites of tissue injury in lung decades after pregnancy. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;16: 382–390. pmid:18339261
- 130. Gaino E, Bavestrello G, Magnino G. Self/non‐self recognition in sponges. Ital J Zool. 1999;66: 299–315.
- 131. Bigger CH, Jokiel PL, Hildemann WH. Cytotoxic transplantation immunity in the sponge Toxadocia violacea. Transplantation. 1983;35: 239–243. pmid:6836705
- 132. Braun AC. Plant tumors. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Reviews on Cancer. 1978;516: 167–191. pmid:365239
- 133.
Kimmel G, Barnholtz-Sloan J, Ji H, Altrock P, Andor N. Modeling the Evolution of Ploidy in a Resource Restricted Environment. International Symposium on Mathematical and Computational Oncology. Springer; 2019. pp. 29–34.
- 134. Kimmel GJ, Dane M, Heiser LM, Altrock PM, Andor N. Integrating mathematical modeling with high throughput imaging explains how polyploid populations behave in nutrient-sparse environments. Cancer Res. 2020. pmid:32938640
- 135. Bonner JT. The origins of multicellularity. Integrative Biology: Issues, News, and Reviews. 1998;1: 27–36.
- 136. Bonner JT. Evolution of development in the cellular slime molds. Evol Dev. 2003;5: 305–313. pmid:12752769
- 137. Flajnik MF, Du Pasquier L. Evolution of innate and adaptive immunity: can we draw a line? Trends Immunol. 2004;25: 640–644. pmid:15530832
- 138. Kurtz J. Specific memory within innate immune systems. Trends Immunol. 2005;26: 186–192. pmid:15797508
- 139. Quammen D. The tangled tree: a radical new history of life. Simon and Schuster; 2018.
- 140. Meier JI, Stelkens RB, Joyce DA, Mwaiko S, Phiri N, Schliewen UK, et al. The coincidence of ecological opportunity with hybridization explains rapid adaptive radiation in Lake Mweru cichlid fishes. Nat Commun. 2019;10: 1–11.
- 141. De Queiroz K. Species concepts and species delimitation. Syst Biol. 2007;56: 879–886. pmid:18027281
- 142. MARCOTRIGIANOfandF GOUIN MR, Marcotrigiano M, Gouin FR. Experimentally synthesized plant chimeras 2. A comparison of in vitro and in vivo techniques for the production of interspecific Nicotiana chimeras. Ann Bot. 1984;54: 513–521.
- 143. Doolittle WF. Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree. Science. 1999;284: 2124–2129. pmid:10381871
- 144. Medawar PB. A biological analysis of individuality. Am Sci. 1952;40: 632–639.
- 145. Danforth CH, Foster F. Skin transplantation as a means of studying genetic and endocrine factors in the fowl. J Exp Zool. 1929;52: 443–470.
- 146. Medawar PB. The Cultivation of Adult Mammalian Skin Epithelium in vitro. 1947;89.
- 147. Medawar PB. The theory of the differences between individuals. Biol Hum Aff. 1947;12: 101. pmid:20251288
- 148. Billingham RE, Brent L, Medawar PB. Quantitative studies on tissue transplantation immunity. III. Actively acquired tolerance. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1956; 357–414.
- 149. Johnson BN, Ehli EA, Davies GE, Boomsma DI. Chimerism in health and potential implications on behavior: A systematic review. Am J Med Genet A. 2020;182: 1513–1529. pmid:32212323
- 150. Murchison EP. Clonally transmissible cancers in dogs and Tasmanian devils. Oncogene. 2008;27: S19–S30. pmid:19956175
- 151. Golubovsky MD. Postzygotic diploidization of triploids as a source of unusual cases of mosaicism, chimerism and twinning. Hum Reprod. 2003;18: 236–242. pmid:12571155
- 152. Souter VL, Parisi MA, Nyholt DR, Kapur RP, Henders AK, Opheim KE, et al. A case of true hermaphroditism reveals an unusual mechanism of twinning. Hum Genet. 2007;121: 179–185. pmid:17165045
- 153.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2015. Available: https://www.r-project.org/.
- 154. Orme D, Freckleton R, Thomas G, Petzoldt T, Fritz S, Isaac N, et al. Comparative analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R. R package version 0 5. 2013;2.
- 155. Revell LJ. phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods in ecology and evolution. 2012.
- 156. Pennell MW, Eastman JM, Slater GJ, Brown JW, Uyeda JC, FitzJohn RG, et al. geiger v2.0: an expanded suite of methods for fitting macroevolutionary models to phylogenetic trees. Bioinformatics. 2014;30: 2216–2218. pmid:24728855
- 157. Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4: 1686.
- 158. Graber S. Phylogenetic comparative methods for discrete responses in evolutionary biology. University of Zurich; 2013.
- 159. Matthews LJ, Arnold C, Machanda Z, Nunn CL. Primate extinction risk and historical patterns of speciation and extinction in relation to body mass. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2011;278: 1256–1263.