Biologists reconstruct genome of 11,000-year-old “almost immortal” sexually-transmitted dog cancer

Canine transmissible venereal tumours (CTVT) is one of only two natural transmissible cancers, and could hold the key to better organ transplants in humans.

Veterinary biologists have discovered that a sexually-transmitted cancer found in dogs around the world first originated 11,000 years ago, making it potentially the oldest living mammalian creature.

The study from the Wellcome Trust’s Sanger Institute, published in Science, analysed the genome of canine transmissable venereal tumours (CTVT), a disease that is one of only two known cancers of its type to have been observed in the natural world (the other, transferred via bites, affecting Tasmanian devils). It’s not a cancer caused by the transfer of a virus, like with cervical cancer and the HPV virus in humans - it’s the transfer of actual cancerous dog cells from dog to dog.

“They are actually a parasite, they need to have their host in order to survive, but they’re actually derived from the same species as their host,” Dr Elizabeth Murchison, the study’s lead author, explained to me. “They’re quite a strange disease. They are an infectious disease, but they’re originally from the same species as their host, which makes them a kind of very tricky to combat.”

“It’s the oldest continually surviving mammalian lifeform that we know of,” she said. “It is almost immortal.”

Genome analysis of samples from a dog in Brazil and another Australia found that the cancer had undergone a huge number of mutations, in the order of two million, since it first began metastasising within the first dog to contract it.

Murchison said: “Between humans we each have about three million mutations, the natural variance that makes us different to other people. Similarly dogs have about three million natural variants that make one dog different to another dog. But cancers themselves, in humans, don’t tend to differ from their host very much. They usually have between 1,000 and 5,000 mutations in the genome that makes the cancer different to the host. Whereas this dog cancer has acquired about two million, which is almost making it like a different individual to the original host that gave rise to it.”

Relying on recent research which found that, within cancer patients, the number of mutations within a cancer correlates both to the type of cancer and the age of the patient, the study team were able to trace back in time to the point at which mutations must have started - giving the age of CTVT at 11,000 years.

Yet CTVT stayed within the small population where it first emerged for roughly 10,500 years, until suddenly spreading elsewhere around the globe - a time that coincides with the beginnings of the European age of exploration. While there’s no way to know where in the world the cancer first appear (yet), the earliest known historical mention of it is by a London doctor in 1810.

With the information from the origin dog’s genome, the team was able to create an image of what it probably looked like. Here's a video from the team further explaining their work:

What’s more, the cancer appears to have been caused by in-breeding.

“It was a relatively inbred individual,” explains Murchison. “Similarly, the Tasmanian devils are relatively inbred population - they live on an island, and they have a small population. The cancer might have originated in a dog that lived in an in-bred population, but from there it managed to adapt into all sorts of out-bred dogs. It can even survive in other species of canids, including jackals and coyotes and foxes. It’s pretty remarkable.”

Theoretically, this type of cancer could emerge at any time in any species, Murchison pointed out, but the experience of the dog and Tasmanian devil transmissible cancers - and from a third variant, which emerged briefly in a population of laboratory hamsters in the 1960s - seems to indicate that in-bred populations are more at risk. There are human populations which suffer from low genetic diversity around the world, and this research could be important in understanding transmissible cancers in the case of a variant appearing.

“These cancers have to overcome one of the most fundamental immunological barriers, and how they do it is still a mystery,” Murchison said. “It’s incredibly important to understand how they do it, as it has implications for how cancers evade the immune system, but also potentially how other infectious diseases might work, and have implications for how to design better methods for helping transplant recipient patients not to reject their graft transplant organs.”

Murchison is also keen to see if further research could help the endangered Tasmanian devil, whose variant is much more aggressive than CTVT and which can kill its host in a matter of months.

What the first dog to get CTVT may have looked like. (Image: Sanger Institute)

Ian Steadman is a staff science and technology writer at the New Statesman. He is on Twitter as @iansteadman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Fark.com’s censorship story is a striking insight into Google’s unchecked power

The founder of the community-driven website claims its advertising revenue was cut off for five weeks.

When Microsoft launched its new search engine Bing in 2009, it wasted no time in trying to get the word out. By striking a deal with the producers of the American teen drama Gossip Girl, it made a range of beautiful characters utter the words “Bing it!” in a way that fell clumsily on the audience’s ears. By the early Noughties, “search it” had already been universally replaced by the words “Google it”, a phrase that had become so ubiquitous that anything else sounded odd.

A screenshot from Gossip Girl, via ildarabbit.wordpress.com

Like Hoover and Tupperware before it, Google’s brand name has now become a generic term.

Yet only recently have concerns about Google’s pervasiveness received mainstream attention. Last month, The Observer ran a story about Google’s auto-fill pulling up the suggested question of “Are Jews evil?” and giving hate speech prominence in the first page of search results. Within a day, Google had altered the autocomplete results.

Though the company’s response may seem promising, it is important to remember that Google isn’t just a search engine (Google’s parent company, Alphabet, has too many subdivisions to mention). Google AdSense is an online advertising service that allows many websites to profit from hosting advertisements on its pages, including the New Statesman itself. Yesterday, Drew Curtis, the founder of the internet news aggregator Fark.com, shared a story about his experiences with the service.

Under the headline “Google farked us over”, Curtis wrote:

“This past October we suffered a huge financial hit because Google mistakenly identified an image that was posted in our comments section over half a decade ago as an underage adult image – which is a felony by the way. Our ads were turned off for almost five weeks – completely and totally their mistake – and they refuse to make it right.”

The image was of a fully-clothed actress who was an adult at the time, yet Curtis claims Google flagged it because of “a small pedo bear logo” – a meme used to mock paedophiles online. More troubling than Google’s decision, however, is the difficulty that Curtis had contacting the company and resolving the issue, a process which he claims took five weeks. He wrote:

“During this five week period where our ads were shut off, every single interaction with Google Policy took between one to five days. One example: Google Policy told us they shut our ads off due to an image. Without telling us where it was. When I immediately responded and asked them where it was, the response took three more days.”

Curtis claims that other sites have had these issues but are too afraid of Google to speak out publicly. A Google spokesperson says: "We constantly review publishers for compliance with our AdSense policies and take action in the event of violations. If publishers want to appeal or learn more about actions taken with respect to their account, they can find information at the help centre here.”

Fark.com has lost revenue because of Google’s decision, according to Curtis, who sent out a plea for new subscribers to help it “get back on track”. It is easy to see how a smaller website could have been ruined in a similar scenario.


The offending image, via Fark

Google’s decision was not sinister, and it is obviously important that it tackles things that violate its policies. The lack of transparency around such decisions, and the difficulty getting in touch with Google, are troubling, however, as much of the media relies on the AdSense service to exist.

Even if Google doesn’t actively abuse this power, it is disturbing that it has the means by which to strangle any online publication, and worrying that smaller organisations can have problems getting in contact with it to solve any issues. In light of the recent news about Google's search results, the picture painted becomes more even troubling.

Update, 13/01/17:

Another Google spokesperson got in touch to provide the following statement: “We have an existing set of publisher policies that govern where Google ads may be placed in order to protect users from harmful, misleading or inappropriate content.  We enforce these policies vigorously, and taking action may include suspending ads on their site. Publishers can appeal these actions.”

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.