Mainstream Science’s Dogma Reversal: Aerobic Glycolysis/

Metabolic Alterations are finally seen as Necessary for Cancer

Cell Initiation/ Maintenance.
Gregory S. Bambeck Ph.D. and Michael Wolfson J. D., M.B.A.

Summary
After a half of a century, mainstream big science has completely
reversed its dogma on how it is necessary that cancer cells partition their
nutrient resources, in a specific way, between material for cell growth and
energy production. A thirty years ago modified version of the originally
rejected Warburg theory, now has powerful support from newly integrated
metabolic pathway studies and core system therapies. This theory: worse than
being ignored, and being actively squelched by a small, but elite group,
controlling the publication and funding philosophy of cancer during this
whole time span. Only the future will tell how much human suffering, could
have been prevented, if just honest inquiry and scrutiny had also been allowed
to flower, instead of the exclusionary and prejudicial pursuit of personal
influence over pet investigative paradigms. Much precious time, knowledge
and human life were lost enforcing such preconception, assumption, and
opinion upon the course of scientific investigation. Fortunately, but belatedly,
data and fact finally triumphed over politics and elevated position. Newly
discovered metabolic control systems may benefit us all, not only in the
medical area of cancer, but in therapeutic arenas of some other major diseases
of aging, as well. A brief human, scientific, data and fact history is contained,
herein.

Introduction
In a watershed reversal of an entrenched fifty four year old dogma,
Science magazine published a Special Section issue on 12/03/10 devoted to
metabolic energetics; and more so to the diseases of aging, such as heart
disease, diabetes II and especially, cancer. Most important, from a historical
(and this document’s) standpoint, is the article on p.1340 by Levine and
Puzio-Kuter, which concludes that key elements of the Warburg aerobic
glycolysis hypothesis are critical to and necessary for the initiation and
maintenance of the transition from the normal cell to cancer cell metabolic
pattern. In most of our previous (and this) papers, we refer to this conversion
as the cancer ‘metabotype.’ This publication did not surprise us, as our
prediction that such a ‘revelation’ would happen soon, has its basis not just in
new, but in firm, and very old, evidence. From 1956 to near present times,
such a pronouncement would have been considered heretical, and so taboo as
to be refused publication in any major scientific journal or to have received
any research funding by any respectable granting agency. This sorry story
goes back to the mid twentieth century. Although science itself may be
impartial, scientists, being all too human, are not. Their organizations and
institutions consist of hierarchies of power, influence and opinion no different
from that of any other political system. Sometimes, even the ‘show me’,
‘replicate to prove’, and peer review crosscheck and verification safeguards of
scientific inquiry can be swept away in the emotional heat of the moment. As
such, was the fury and wholesale rejection surrounding the towering influence
of the Nobel laureate, Otto Warburg and his aerobic glycolysis hypothesis.
Fortunately, for science and the rest of us, blunders of this magnitude are rare.
Science, for all its outward appearances of rational intelligence and
progresses that have arisen from its aggregate achievements, can obscure the
view from inside individual laboratories or in narrow areas of specialization,
where it can be actually shown that science moves forward more so in fits and
starts, lurches and bounds and often in haphazard random walks. Scientific
disagreements usually take place without much beyond a few political ripples,
as friendly (or otherwise) combatants ruffle each other’s feathers on a one to
one, or small group basis. In short, things do not normally get out of hand.
Such is not the case with the Warburg hypothesis, or the refinements of
its one and only significant shortcoming. For over a half of a century, the
subject of aerobic glycolysis has been verboten; sealed with skull and
crossbones. In 1956, Warburg’s two valid hypotheses went down the same
drain used to flush down his third imperfect hypothesis. More significantly,
even the study of general intermediary metabolism, itself, has moved into
similar backwaters for the last 30 years. How and why did this happen? What
has caused such a profound reversal in our thinking? How have we, (science
and medicine) been hurt by this? Can we, or do we resolve the inequities of
the past and/or give credit where credit is due? What are the medical
implications of our newly found logical reversal? Where do we go from here?
Answers to some of these questions, in part or more fully, are available
in the Science article referenced in the second sentence of this paper. We
highly recommend that the reader look into this article, because it (ever so
quietly) represents probably the biggest biomedical upheaval, reversal and
revolution in more than a half century. This is no small potatoes. We are
looking at a genuine historical paradigm shift of momentous dimensions, the
historical importance, of which, aerobic glycolysis naysayers would wish to
remain hidden in the attic, like a senile grandparent, because the ‘unquiet’
story version is simply just too embarrassing. We know this is true, because
one of us was there; lived it. We take a little different tack than Science, when
answering such questions and while remembering the fifty-four year
aformentioned history. We are going to talk a little science, but the real heavy
stuff we will leave to the reader to find in our short, but highly informative
reference list. Regardless, it helps to have a basic background in metabolics,
nutrition and bioenergetics or biochemistry 101. For the less technically
initiated, scan over the science stuff, paying deeper attention to the human
narrative woven throughout this document, as it is instructive in its own way.

Ancient history: Warburg and Aerobic Respiration

About 70 years ago, Otto Warburg, a highly prestigious paragon of
theoretical metabolics, hypothesized that aerobic glycolysis, lactic acid
production and mitochondrial respiratory deficiency were a triple requirement
for the conversion from a normal to a cancer cell. This cellular state
completely changed the way a cell made the vital energy carrier molecule,
ATP, which is required to power most cellular functions. In a normal cell,
glucose is the primary fuel burned to make ATP. This occurs in two stages.
The first stage, called glycolysis, burns without oxygen, produces two ATP
and feeds its product, pyruvate, into the second stage, called the Kreb’s-
OX/PHOS system, which burns with oxygen and produces 32 ATP. The
second system also makes two ATP without oxygen. Thus, in total, four ATP
(12%) result from burning without oxygen (substrate phosphorylation) and 32
ATP (88%) are made by burning to carbon dioxide, with oxygen (oxidative
phosphorylation-OX/PHOS). Glycolysis occurs in the cell cytoplasm, while
Kreb’s-OX/PHOS occurs in the cellular organelles called the mitochondria.
When oxygen concentrations are limiting (hypoxia), mitochondria cannot
burn all the pyruvate that glycolysis produces. So instead, the pyruvate, is
converted to lactate and exported from the cell. Rather than dying an energy
death due to lack of ATP, the cell elevates glucose importation and the rate of
glycolysis increases dramatically (often exceeding 1000%) to make up for the
ATP energy production shortfall. When oxygen levels rise, the normal cell
system returns back to its efficient 12/88% ATP production ratio. This we call
the Pasteur affect. This return to normal does not occur in cancer cells when
adequate oxygen supply returns to normal, once again. Thus, Warburg used
the term aerobic glycolysis, when ascribing this phenomenon to cancer cells.
Warburg stated that cancer cells were different from normal cells in that they
were ‘stuck’ in a state of 1) elevated glycolysis, 2) elevated lactate production
and 3) mitochondrial oxygen consumption deficiency.
It was postulate number three that became the fly in the ointment.
Scientists successfully attacked his mitochondrial respiratory defect concept
because many cancer cell mitochondria had normal respiration. Warburg
countered that low mitochondrial numbers, on a per cell basis, could yield the
results seen, as it is the cell, which is the unit of life. This whole debate came
to a head in 1956-1959, in a duel between Warburg and Weinhouse, Chance
and others. Warburg’s third hypothesis was upended, when it was
demonstrated that more than just a few types of cancer cell mitochondria have
normal respiratory chains and that a small number of cancers even show
elevated respiration on a ‘per cell’ basis (Warburg, Science 123, 309-314,
1956. Weinhouse, 124, 267-269, 1956. Chance, 128, 700-708, 1959). When
Warburg shifted his emphasis toward mitochondrial ATP production
deficiency, Weinhouse countered by assuming that normal carbon dioxide
production and oxygen consumption were a proof of adequate ATP
production. Weinhouse was wrong on this one, but it was before the days of
the chemiosmotic hypothesis of Mitchell, and the concept of respiration being
uncoupled from ATP was unknown and not readily measurable with the
technology of the times, so his knowledge error can be overlooked, but his
assumption cannot, because it was no more proven than its antithesis. Even
though Weinhouse was very wrong, he won the day. In fact, he won the next
four decades, and even in 1999, still did not consider metabolism in his highly
touted ‘six hallmarks of cancer’, even though by this time, convincing data to
the contrary had been available for more than 25 years. By this time, not only
was he wrong, but he was ‘wrong on steroids, wrong’ as they say, these days,
and as we shall show, later. Suffice it to say, that Warburg was dethroned, and
like fallen rock stars, giants of science rarely arise again to any degree of
former glory. Moving his target from oxygen to the cell to ATP undid him.
From that time forward, cancer cell metabolism, and bioenergetic
metabolism became the handmaidens of regulatory molecular biology. By the
1970’s, genomic instability, mutability, oncoviruses, signaling systems,
immortalization, growth factors, growth factor suppressors, angiogenesis,
metastatic cell recognition etc. became the research paradigm focus of cancer
causation, while aerobic glycolysis was perceived as a mere effect of these
‘greater’ factors. By the time the 1980’s rolled around, genomics, followed by
massive DNA sequencing and mining in the 1990’s, completely dominated
the cancer research agenda, to the point that their was no one left who could
even remember thinking of cancer in metabolic terms. Below, we tell a brief
story about someone who did think about it, and deeply.

Intermediate History: A Single Case Study

About 20 years after the 1956 Warburg debacle, a young and very
politically naïve Kent State University graduate student thought that he saw
something that caused him to revisit the Warburg hypothesis. In short, he
agreed that respiratory deficiency, on a per cell basis, was not a feature of all
cancer cells, but was common to many tumor types, but also, that something
was ‘funky’ about cancer cell mitochondrial ATP production.
A new semi-micro-technique had arrived in the early 1960’s that
allowed us to measure the actual number of ATP produced per oxygen
consumed in isolated mitochondria, which could measure to what degree ATP
production was actually linked (coupled) to oxygen consumption. In general,
and without getting into details, mitochondria produce three ATP per oxygen
consumed when 100% coupled. Anything less is considered ‘uncoupled,’ and
is expressed as a ratio of full coupling in terms of the ADP/O ratio; i.e. an
ADP/O of two tells us that mitochondria are 67% coupled, or 33% uncoupled,
as one might prefer it. Thus, uncoupled mitochondria are measurably ATP
production deficient. Since our grad student only had a single mouse
lymphoblastic lymphoma model in his own lab, he decided to review and
compile, and conduct a broader experiment as an armchair exercise, by
reviewing the literature, which was subject impoverished, but adequate. We
call this gedanken, or mind science, often employed by pure theoreticians.
What he did find was that per cancer cell mitochondrial ATP production,
was severely diminished in all cancer types in which there were mitochondrial
population, respiration and/or ADP/O data. He concluded that virtually all
cancer cells might have lower than normal Kreb’s-OX/PHOS produced ATP
as a result of 1) lower than normal numbers of mitochondria per cell, 2)
deficient respiration per mitochondria, 3) decreased Kreb’s cycle/NADH
production, 4) lowered coupling to OX/PHOS or 5) a combination of any two
or more of the above. Whether the per cell mitochondrial ATP production
shortfall was due to an intrinsic internal central system defect(s) in the actual
mitochondrion itself or whether it was due to some external regulatory control
element(s) defect(s) did not matter, as long as the net output ATP deficiency
was the same end result. “By whatever means,” “must be present” and “on a
per cell basis” was the central mantra of his dissertation: Mitochondrial
Alterations in a Lymphoblastic Lymphoma Transplanted into DBA/1J Mice.
He also showed how this necessary aerobic glycolytic change would switch
the whole of the panoply of intermediary metabolism into state of relentless
cell growth, as a cause of cancer, and not an effect. As we shall see, thirty
years later, we finally know all of these propositions to be true.
This kid was not only naïve he was a glutton for punishment. Among
other things, he was an intermediary metabolism junkie. He memorized every
chemical structure and reaction of the thousand plus biochemical components
of the intermediary metabolic system and stared for endless hours, (for over
three years) at the accumulated metabolic pathway charts that covered the
entire expanse of his bedroom walls. In time, the charts began to morph from
a gigantic hairball of nouns into the dynamic singularity of a verb. It became
clear to him that mitochondrial Kreb’s-OX/PHOS ATP production deficiency,
in the presence of glycolytic enhancement and pyruvate diversion to lactate,
would shift the whole schematic toward anabolism in exactly the way
necessary to enforce irreversible cell growth, and to satisfy ATP requirements.
As a for instance, in the presence of dramatically enhanced glucose
importation, elevated glycolytic fetal enzymes, pyruvate diversion and Kreb’s-
OX/PHOS deficiency, a number of things must, and do, happen. Glucose
becomes partitioned between glycolysis and the pentose phosphate shunt
(PPP), an anabolic drive system, which can be assisted by a pyruvate log jam
that piles up glycolytic intermediates, principal, of which, is glyceraldehyde-
3phosphate (G3P). Glucose and G3P are feedstocks for PPP. The PPP canon
taught is that the PPP principally provides NADPH for anabolic reduction,
and ribose for nucleotide synthesis. A lesser emphasized hat trick of PPP is
that it generates its own feed stocks, glucose phosphate and G3P, as its
outputs, thus reinforcing its own pathway inputs to deplete glucose to carbon
dioxide, via anaerobic hydrolysis. Also little regarded, but worthy of
honorable mention, is that the phosphorylated PPP feed stocks, do not burn up
all the ATP energy in their formation, but conserve some of it as high energy
intermediates. This is also true of NADPH, which defuses highly mutagenic
reactive oxygen species (ROS) from systems like uncoupled OX/PHOS.
Our grad student also envisioned Kreb’s-OX/PHOS ATP production
inefficient mitochondria as participating in the anabolic process via its amino
acid transaminases and amino acid exchange shuttle systems, in concert with
the urea cycle ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) off ramp to help provide a
balanced nitrogen substrate mix for protein and nucleotide synthesis. The
ODC pathway participated in tumor metabolism, as ODC blockers can inhibit
cell growth and induce differentiation in some cancers. He did not view the
mitochondrial glutamine pathway as a glycolytic substrate phosphorylation
and ATP generation synergizer or partial glycolytic alternative in cancers that
were not rampantly glycolytic. He saw it as included in the nitrogen balance
amino acid system. Yes, it is also true that alternative glutamine pathway
upregulation can make an aerobic glycolysis contribution in some tumors, but
it does not seem to be a ‘metabotype’ necessity, as it appears to be, most
often, an adjunct that assists aerobic glycolytic substrate phosphorylation in
exacerbating the cancer metabolic phenotype, and is not significantly present
in many cases. Regardless, its substrate phosphoryation ATP contribution is
substantial and supports glycolytic up regulation in some cancers. Not
surprisingly, he presented his case with condensed metabolic flow diagrams.
Although there was virtually no research on the topic at that time, our
grad student was heartened to find that Kim and Song, in 1976 and 1978, had
seen incredible cancer cell kill rates with 5-thio-D-glucose (5TG), a glycolytic
inhibitor. This indicated that their tumor model cancer cell mitochondria could
not recover for the lost glycolytic cellular ATP production from such an
insult, while normal cells were unaffected. In fact, in vitro, 99.9999% of their
cancer cells died, in four hours, with 5TG and radiation while normal cells
lived, and were actually radiation protected! This shows the potential of a
direct aerobic glycolytic pathway attack synergy with conventional therapy.
Imagine how far we could have run with a ‘concept’ ball like this by now, if
we had only taken advantage of the 32 years ago head start, instead of having
to ‘rediscover’ other glycolytic blocking agents in just the last few years.
With his ‘unassailable’ armaments in hand, our intrepid graduate student
went to cell biology and physiology meetings for several years, only being
allowed lowly poster sessions because their were no symposia on the subject
and no podium presentation space available for such topics. One would think
that such a global hypothesis, with ancient debate resolving data and such
stupendous differential cancer cell death rates, at least, would inspire debate.
Among the young scientists, there was no debate because they had no idea
what the H he was talking about, most of them, never even having heard of
the Warburg effect. Among the old guard, there was no debate because they
dismissed him out of hand, derided him or flat out abused him. It was worse
than humiliating that there was not even enough consideration for rational
discussion. The chronic “We don’t believe that crap anymore.” type of
response, was more like a religious rejoinder than a scientific argument. His
vague hopes of publication, at least as an ‘off the wall’ and ‘crazy’, but a
somewhat creative and forward thinker, evaporated, when rejected, even by
the ‘liberal’ Journal of Theoretical Biology. Having been (un?)duly castigated
by the reigning Olympic gods of science, he assumed the appropriate
‘insignificant insect’ posture and opted to publish his dissertation under the
aformentioned more humble title, as opposed to the more strident version
appearing after the colon in the title of this present article. Oh! Incidentally,
his lymphoblastic lymphoma mitochondria were completely uncoupled, in
direct opposition to the full coupling of all normal tissues tested.
So, here we sit, thirty much too many years later, ‘rediscovering’ a
brand new discovery! killing cancer through taking advantage of its ‘sweet
tooth’. Not only had they thrown out the baby with the bathwater, and then the
tub and the plumbing fixtures; now, they have even ‘discovered’ this whole,
new thing! called a bathroom. Meanwhile, all this happens while a special
edition of Science decries the paucity of existing intermediary metabolic
specialists because the field is now so unbelievably fallow. Go figure.
So, what has become of our ‘insignificant insect’? He remains as
unknown today as he was thirty years ago, in spite of the fact that his
postulates outlined a simple and direct, but adequately detailed description of
the central metabolic and energetic framework (sans glutamine, partial oops!)
that we now know to be true. However, he finally has a sense of belated relief,
now that a critical area of cancer research is receiving its due scrutiny.
Scrutiny was no more than what he was asking for, in 1980, in the first place.
Following 1980, molecular biology entered the age of genomics, with
DNA fingerprinting, DNA sequencing, gene splicing and cloning, leading the
pack. By 1990, this had taken on all the trappings of a genuine gold rush. The
DNA molecule became the new belle of the ball of life science, while protein
function, now called proteomics, became a wallflower. That is, by no means, a
bad thing (except for the proteomics part). A new and bountiful harvest of
knowledge, unlike anything ever seen in the life sciences, was being born. The
DNA light of new understanding was burning so brightly as to ‘blind, shock
and awe’. Although hidden in the data storm, eventual salvation for aerobic
glycolysis was grinding slowly, but relentlessly, through the back door.
However, this would still take time. For the next two decades of the 80’s
and 90’s, cancer cell metabolism investigation, now reduced to a sub-
handmaiden to genomics, and already reeling from its first two decades of
insult, was now in line for 20 more years of the same. Even as late as 1999,
Sidney Weinhouse did not even mention metabolism in his famous six
hallmarks of cancer, those being: 1) growth signal self activation, 2) growth
suppressor inhibition, 3) programmed cell suicide evasion (anti-apoptosis), 4)
immortalization, 5) sustained vascularization (angiogenesis) and 6) metastatic
tissue invasion. These may have sounded complete at the time, but it had been
a long cold winter for cancer metabolism, and things were about to change.
After the human genome project finished at the turn of the century, the
scientific community woke up to an obvious next question. We have over
22,000 genes here, coding for proteins, the functions of the majority of which,
we are clueless. What do the proteins that all these genes code for, actually
do? After the turn of the millennium, this question would lead us back, full
circle, to a real serious and sober rethink of a modified Warburg hypothesis.
As unsympathetic as it may sound, it helps that the old school knee jerk anti-
Warburgians are now mostly gone, and aren’t around to manipulate,
‘bulldog’ and run roughshod over contrary thought. In addition, a dearth of
metabotypic data has permitted a new crop of open-minded scientists to arrive
with unencumbered metabolic preconceptions onto a fresh playing field. What
a new playing field it is! There now exists a profusion of data around cancer
cell intermediary metabolic regulatory control systems that would have had
any graduate student from thirty years ago brimming in anticipation of
understanding their significance. Some of this meaning is just coming into the
light, like a fresh marriage between then and now, reminding us of the phrase;
“Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue.”

Present History: The New Millennium

During the last decade, since the turn of the millennium, the golden age
of biology went from a promise to a reality. Not only has there been a zillion
fold increase in the speed of molecular, genomic and proteomic data
collection, but there has also been a similar concomitant decrease in the price
per data point collected. For example, in the last ten years, DNA sequencing
has decreased its time/price ratio from 5 years and $3 billion per genome to
3days and $10,000 per genome. This represents a 99.6% improvement in time
and a 99.996% reduction in price that yields a 99.9999%+ overall
improvement in efficiency. This comes with a promise of a 100 times more
efficiency increase over the next couple of years. Similarly, computational
speed, memory and topic specific software have kept abreast with the barrage
of genoproteomic and metabogenoproteomic information, and most
noticeably, on a gene conservation evolutionary scale. In the case in point,
that being, our cancer metabolism discussion, a much deeper understanding of
the huge and growing array of metabolic control elements has led us to a more
mechanistic understanding that a modified Warburg hypothesis is correct, and
may provide us with, paradoxically, a smaller, but more powerful suite of
differential cancer cell killing strategies and molecules. There is also evidence
(from now and thirty years ago, as the reader may recall 5TG) that these
central pathway target molecules could synergize with lower dose forms of
existing chemotherapies that could confer fewer and milder side affects, and
that they could dovetail with simple dietary and life-style changes.
In this brief review, we will be providing a kind of ‘Cliff Notes’
rendition of the regulatory control metabotype system, as we now understand
it, because its interaction set is huge. Otherwise, this article would become a
more burdensome tome than it already is. Instead, we will later provide about
a handful of Wow! Gee-Whiz! BIG SCIENCE review articles, so that you
do not have to wade through a lot of the professional ‘muck’ to get to the real
juice. Besides, their bibliographies provide all the ‘muck’ that you would ever
need. However, we believe that it is very beautiful muck, so, have at it.
Shortly after the year 2000, the nutrient and energy sensing regulatory
metabolism control papers began to grow, and then expand profoundly around
2005. Almost immediately thereafter, some of the regulatory pathways came
into focus, and soon, the dam burst wide open. By the latter part of the decade,
we understood that an interwoven and layered regulatory hierarchy, was
integrating the primary glycolytic and mitochondrial intermediary metabolic
pathways in all dividing cells, be they embryonic, wound healing, adult
replacement or cancer cells. The only caveat was that cancer cells were
mutationally ‘stuck’ in this metabolic trench while normal cells were not. This
was a genuine new discovery in that it demonstrated a new level of aerobic
glycolysis creation, control and dynamics. This is a higher level of
manipulation of the same core system described in 1980. This rendered the
cancer ‘metabotype’ to be true. Thus, central aerobic glycolysis blockers, and
blockers of their regulatory pathways should inhibit or kill cancer, which is
also true. The new notion is; that if we could identify the specifics of the
system more rationally, and with a more diversified weapon set, we could do
some serious damage to this disease we call cancer. The system is so anciently
conserved in evolution that system modifiers should be strewn (like
resveratrol, anti-oxidants etc.) throughout the world’s ecological biota. Some
new weapons are already emerging and the beneficial results tell us that there
is a lot of work yet to do, but with a plan. The good news is that we finally
know where we are going. If there was ever a time for the pharmaceutical
companies to stand tall, this is that time. If there was ever a time to throw a
buck at cancer research, this is that time. Using cancer’s own growth system
against itself would be preferable to the historical strategy of beating it to
death with primitive chemical and radiation clubs that also kill normal cells
and render the patients ‘sicker than dogs.’ Thus, this article also registers a
vote for the importance of the preservation of the world’s ecosystems.
New core pathway blockers are already showing some promise. For
instance, 3-bromopyruvate (3BP) blocks Hexokinase II, a mitochondrial ATP
highjacker, that dramatically enhances the glycolytic and PPP systems. This
resulted in total eradication of 100% of metastatic tumors in rats, in a
hepatocarcinoma model system. Similarly, dichloroacetic acid (DCA) inhibits
pyruvate kinase-2 (PKM2), a fetal pyruvate to mitochondria blocker found in
a broad range of tumors. Purportedly, both 3BP and DCA kill cancers that
cannot up regulate mitochondrial OX/PHOS due to critical central or
regulatory pathway mutation, while shrinking or halting growth in benign and
metastatic cancers that can still maintain enough OX/PHOS for quiescent
survival. Although both are preferable to the full blown disease, cancer kill is
preferable to growth stoppage, because it eradicates the tumor, while growth
arrest is more akin to resetting the clock on a time bomb, as an already
mutated system simply awaits not much further mutation, which may or may
not happen. But, hey folks! At this point, we will take any port in a storm.
DCA is yielding results in a broad array of animal cancers, and clinical trials
are underway in human brain glioblastomas. Preliminary results are not short
of thrilling. We already discussed 5TG, as something old. Other aerobic
glycolysis and mitochondrial blockers are in the works, as something new.
In addition to the core, or central metabolic pathways of aerobic
glycolysis, an interwoven and layered set of regulatory pathways control the
central pathways. Genetic errors in the regulatory pathways can force the
central pathways to get ‘stuck’ in the cancer metabotype. Blockers, rectifiers
and mutations in these pathways institute the same or similar effects as seen
by blockers, rectifiers and mutations in the central pathways. For example,
when driven by mutated nutrient sensing growth signals or repressed by
activated mutant energy sensing growth suppressor signals, aerobic glycolysis
is instituted, and multiple benign tumors result, in animal models. Eventually,
these new highly ROS enhanced, and therefore, mutagenic tumors, go
metastatic. Throwing a monkey wrench into this aerobic glycolysis activated
system can kill the cancer, but spares normal cells, because they are adaptable.
If there is anything approaching a metabolic main control element in the
nutrient fuel and energy sensing metabolic regulatory system, it is target of
rapamycin (TOR). An actvated TOR switches the system toward nutrient
importation, OX/PHOS inefficient anabolism and cell growth, while an
inhibited TOR switches the system toward internal metabolite recycling,
OX/PHOS efficient catabolism and cell quiescence. Like a spider in the center
of a web, with all legs tuned to a host of quivering silk strands, TOR performs
a balancing act between the parts of a huge array of individual inputs from an
integrated ‘cross-talking’ set of metabolic status sensors. Then, it activates and
represses, in turn, gene activators and repressors of several thousand genes
that change metabolism, which in turn, changes the inputs from its metabolic
status sensors. This regulatory feedback system allows the cell to settle into
several principle types of homeostatic drive states such as cell growth and
division, quiescence, response to starvation, ROS load and cell component
stress damage. The elucidation of the regulatory TOR affected and effected
systems are what finally cemented the modified Warburg concepts into stone.
Briefly, the cell growth factor nutrient sensing IGF/P13K/AkT/TOR pathway
upregulates HIF to stimulate anaerobic glycolysis and PGC-1alpha to institute
mitochondrial neogenesis, which makes new, but OX/PHOS inefficient
mitochondria. This activated TOR pathway inhibits the 4B-EP mitochondria
regenesis pathway, which when stimulated, up regulates respiratory gene
activation, in turn, rendering mitochondria OX/PHOS efficient. These are pro-
cancer and anti-cancer systems, respectively, as well as being pro and anti-
metabotype. We use the terms neogenesis and regenesis to distinguish
between the two separate phases of mitochondrial biogenesis. When operating
normally, the cell growth system institutes a temporary and reversible pseudo-
aerobic glycolysis, and when mutated, this process gets irreversibly ‘stuck,’
and institutes the cancer metabotype. In addition to up regulation of
glycolysis, HIF activates vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which
institutes angiogenesis. Thus, we now know that three of Weinhouse’s six
hallmarks of cancer form a singular direct TOR systems link to aerobic
glycolysis. The fact that the immortalizing ribonucleoprotein, telomerase,
relocates from the mitochondria to the nucleus under this metabolic condition,
as it does in rapidly dividing embryonic cells, implicates a fourth Weinhouse
hallmark. The fact that the activated TOR system also turns off autophagy and
down regulates the apoptotic cell suicide program, in addition to the notion
that growth rate progression and metastatic invasion typically correlate with a
progressively more ruthless aerobic glycolysis drive state, as adjuncts to the
last two hallmarks, cannot be overlooked. In spite of the thousands of mutated
oncophenotypes that plague our present cancer cell miasma, the modified
Warburg effect remains the most central, consistent, and universal ‘hallmark’
of pre-cancerous hyperplasia, cancer cell initiation, cancer cell maintenance
and cancer cell progression that we know of. Maybe, we need fewer hallmarks
and less assumption. Weinhouse is wrong again. Weinhouse’s followers
should, by now, be retreating from their dogma, holding their tails between
their legs and whimpering.
Even with a virtual absence of knowledge of the external regulatory
interactions between Kreb’s-OX/PHOS and glycolysis, in 1980, the system, at
that time, was conceivable from its central elements alone. This was possible
for our grad student, because it is the central system that is changed,
regardless of whether it is driven by core internal defects or external
regulatory pathway defects. The bifurcation of mitochondrial biogenesis into
growth driven Kreb’s-OX/PHOS inefficient neogenesis and Kreb’s-OX/PHOS
efficient regenesis is real illuminating, particularly in helping to understand
more esoteric regulatory features than those provided in the 1980 hypothesis.
For those who wish to delve ‘knee deep’ into this system, a general
overview, with simple life style practical applications, is available in our
article: Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer cell Metabolism, Diabetes II,
Muscular Wasting and Life Extension are all Linked as a Single Controllable
Molecular Pathway, by Bambeck and Wolfson, which can be search engined
on the internet. For those who wish to plunge ‘eyeball deep’ into these
systems, they can look up the following articles: (Z. Feng, Cold Springs
Harbor Laboratory Press, 2010 p.199; I. Topisirovic and N. Sonenberg,
Science, 327, 3/5/10 p.321; L. Fontana et.al., Science, 328, 4/16/10, p.1223;
T. Seyfried and L.Sheldon, Nutrition and Metabolism, 7,7, 1/27/10; and for
multiple papers and articles, Science, Special Section, 3/12/10, p.1337).
Search engine word sets like AMPK-TOR-cancer; mitochondrial regenesis or
neogenesis; Bambeck-cancer and/or life extension; caloric restriction
pathway; aerobic glycolysis-Warburg and other obvious search engine words
in this article will get you to anywhere you want to go.
The main reason that there is such a recent explosion of work on the
nutrient sensing IGF/P13K/AkT/TORc1/HIF and its converse energy and
stress sensing p53/AMPK/TORc2/ROS/FOXO/SESN loop pathways has to do
with the fact that they cast such a broad net. First, they are highly conserved in
the evolutionary tree, from yeast to humans. Second, they integrate across a
wide array of disease vs. health, conditions. The cancer metabotype is just the
tip of this iceberg, albeit being one damn big tip; big enough for it to be a
mega-topic all its own. The relative ease and simplicity of controlled
manipulation of the core and regulatory elements of this system promise to
deliver a powerful anti-cancer armamentarium, in addition to providing
weapons and life style tools for fighting heart disease, muscular wasting,
obesity and diabetes II. Including cancer, these diseases/conditions are often
referred to as ‘the diseases of aging,’ and account for a whopping 85% of all
death in the developing and developed world. Probably the most surprising
discovery of all is that up regulation of the AMPK/TOR/SESN loop initiates
genuine life extension beyond the normal maximum via caloric restriction
(CR). Even more astounding is that CR mimetics such as metformin (an
AMPK activator and anti-diabetes II drug), rapamycin (a TOR inhibitor and
anti-tissue rejection factor) and perhaps, ‘high bioavailability’ resveratrol (a
common dietary supplement, AMPK activator and anti-oxidant), fight all of
these major diseases. They reduce diabetes severity via increased insulin
sensitivity, inhibit cancer cell metabotype formation as previously described,
promote weight loss via lipid catabolism up regulation, decrease muscular
wasting and cardiac insufficiency via mitochondrial regenesis and extend life
beyond its normal maximum length via increased cell cleaning autophagy,
ROS reduction and all of the above items described. We talk in more detail
about the life extension pathway in our aforementioned publication.
These diseases already strain our national budget to the breaking point,
and threaten to undermine and overwhelm our economy in the next decade or
two. With our present economy spending almost a fifth of its GDP on
medicine, we have never been in more need of the proverbial white knight in
shining armor. Well folks, this just might be that white knight, albeit a rather
historically beaten, bruised, tarnished, but finally renewed and reinvigorated
white knight. If we are lucky and if we are right, all we need to do is roll up
our sleeves, get to work, and send cancer back to the same hellhole where it
came from. Maybe we can take the other common diseases of aging along
with it, while we are at it.

Afterword
The saddest, and sickest, part of this whole, pathetic dirge is that we had
a correct outline of a coherent cancer metabolism theory; and a few central
pathway assault systems, over thirty years ago. These are just being
‘rediscovered’ today. Only the future will tell us how much unnecessary time
and life have been lost. Let us just hope that we will never suffer from the
likes of such a ‘theory-bigotry’ ever again.

Copyright: January 23, 2011 by

Gregory S. Bambeck Ph.D.

E mail:gregorybambeck@yahoo.com

Michael Wolfson J.D., M.B.A.

E mail: mwolfson@stanfordalumni.com