Advertisement

Unanticipated Trends Stemming from Initial Events in the History of Cell Culture: Vitalism in 2013?

  • Carlos Sonnenschein
  • David Lee
  • Jonathan Nguyen
  • Ana M. Soto
Chapter
Part of the History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences book series (HPTL, volume 2)

Abstract

During the period 1907–1912, tissue culture pioneers developed the basic techniques that, with modifications, have been adopted by experimental biologists worldwide to resolve a variety of scientific and technological questions. Because their immediate pragmatic concern was the “growth” of the cells, these pioneers may have inadvertently ignored the theoretical underpinnings of why those cells grew in the artificial conditions they imposed on them. By theoretical underpinnings we mean what premises they adopted to interpret the fact that cells grew outside the organism from where they were explanted, i.e., did they favor proliferation or quiescence as their default state? Here, we argue that the premises adopted and the interpretation of the data they collected introduced important misconceptions that still remain in place. The crucial one has been the notion that quiescence, instead of proliferation, is the default state of cells in metazoan. Later on, this notion led to the claim that there were “signals,” so-called growth factors, that would stimulate those passively quiescent cells to undergo proliferation. Additionally, the notion that quiescence as the default state of cells in metazoa is inimical to evolutionary theory because it implies the intervention of some external, undefined entity that instruct cells to enter their cycle of reproduction. Probably unintentionally, this mistaken conclusion carrying a specific command may be considered as the core of a sort of a naïve physicalism that hinders the understanding of biological organization.

Keywords

Default state Emergence Growth factors Proliferation Tissue culture Senescence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

 This work was supported by grants from the Parsemus Foundation and the NIH (ES0150182, ES012301 and ES08314). We are grateful to Cheryl Schaeberle and Michael Askenase for their excellent editorial assistance.

References

  1. Abercrombie, M. 1961. Ross Granville Harrison 1870–1959. Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 7: 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberts, B. 2010. Model organisms and human health. Science 330: 1724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alberts, B., et al. 1994. Molecular biology of the cell. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  4. Alberts, B., et al. 2008. Molecular biology of the cell. London: Garland Science.Google Scholar
  5. Allen, Garland E. 2005. Mechanism, vitalism and organicism in late nineteenth and twentieth-century biology: The importance of historical context. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 36: 261–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bard, J.B.L. 1978. A quantitative model of liver regeneration in the rat. Journal of Theoretical Biology 73: 509–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernard, Claude. 1957. An introduction to the study of experimental medicine. New York: Dover Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bishop, J.M. 1991. Molecular themes in oncogenesis. Cell 64: 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bizzarri, M., A. Cucina, F. Conti, and F. D’Anselmi. 2008. Beyond the oncogene paradigm: Understanding complexity in cancerogenesis. Acta Biotheoretica 56: 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burrows, Montrose. 1910. The cultivation of tissues of the chick-embryo outside the body. Journal of the American Medical Association 20: 2057–2058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carrel, Alexis. 1911. Rejuvenation of cultures of tissues. Journal of the American Medical Association 57: 1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carrel, Alexis. 1912a. Technique for cultivating a large quantity of tissue. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 15: 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carrel, Alexis. 1912b. Pure cultures of cells. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 16: 165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carrel, Alexis. 1912c. On the permanent life of tissues outside the body. The Journal of Experimental Medicine 15: 516–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carrel, Alexis. 1931. The new cytology. Science 73: 297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carrel, Alexis, and Montrose Burrows. 1910a. Cultivation of adult tissues and organs outside of the body. Journal of the American Medical Association 55: 1379–1381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carrel, Alexis, and Montrose Burrows. 1910b. Cultivation of sarcoma outside of the body: A second note. Journal of the American Medical Association 55: 1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carrel, Alexis, and Montrose Burrows. 1910c. Artificial stimulation and inhibition of the growth of normal and sarcomatous tissues. Journal of the American Medical Association 56: 32–33.Google Scholar
  19. Casanova, J. 2012. Stemness as a cell default state. EMBO Reports 13: 396–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eagle, H., and K.A. Piez. 1960. The utilization of proteins by cultured human cells. Journal of Biological Chemistry 235: 1095–1097.Google Scholar
  21. Ebling, A.H. 1942. Dr. Carrel’s immortal chicken heart: Present, authentic facts about the oft-falsified scientific “celebrity”. Scientific American 22–24.Google Scholar
  22. Gilbert, Scott F., and Sahotra Sarkar. 2000. Embracing complexity: Organicism for the 21st century. Developmental Dynamics 219: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanahan, D., and R.A. Weinberg. 2000. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100: 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison, R.G. 1907. Observations of the living developing nerve fiber. Anatomical Record 1: 116–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harrison, R.G. 1910. The outgrowth of the nerve fiber as a mode of protoplasmic movement. The Journal of Experimental Zoology 9: 787–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Harrison, R.G. 1913. The life of tissues outside the organism from the embryological standpoint. Transactions of the Congress of American Physicians and Surgeons 9: 63–75.Google Scholar
  27. Kay, Lily E. 2000. Who wrote the book of life?: A history of the genetic code. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. LaFollette, H.S., and N. Shanks. 1994. Animal experimentation: The legacy of Claude Bernard. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 8: 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Landecker, H. 2004. Culturing life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Laursen, I., P. Briand, and A.E. Lykkesfeldt. 1990. Serum albumin as a modulator on growth of the human breast cancer cell line, MCF-7. Anticancer Research 10: 343–351.Google Scholar
  31. Lewis, M.R., and W.H. Lewis. 1911a. The growth of embryonic chick tissues in artificial media, agar, and bouillon. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin 22: 126–127.Google Scholar
  32. Lewis, M.R., and W.H. Lewis. 1911b. The cultivation of tissues from chick embryos in solutions of NaCl, CaCl2, KCl, and NaHCO3. Anatomical Record 5: 277–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lewis, M.R., and W.H. Lewis. 1912a. The cultivation of sympathetic nerves from the intestine of chick embryos in saline solutions. Anatomical Record 6: 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewis, W.H., and M.R. Lewis. 1912b. The cultivation of chick tissues in media of known chemical constitution. Anatomical Record 6: 207–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Longo, Giuseppe, Paul-Antoine Miquel, Carlos Sonnenschein, and Ana M. Soto. 2012. Is information a proper observable for biological organization? Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 109: 108–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Luria, Salvador Edward. 1975. 36 lectures in biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lykkesfeldt, A.E., and P. Briand. 1986. Indirect mechanism of oestradiol stimulation of cell proliferation of human breast cancer cell lines. British Journal of Cancer 53: 29–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maienschein, Jane. 1983. Experimental biology in transition: Harrison’s embryology 1885–1910. Studies in the History of Biology 6: 107–127.Google Scholar
  39. Mayr, Ernst. 1982. The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.Google Scholar
  40. Mayr, Ernst. 1996. This is biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Moscona, A. 1952. Cell suspensions from organ rudiments of chick embryo. Experimental Cell Research 3: 535–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Noble, Denis. 2007. Claude Bernard, the first systems biologist, and the future of physiology. Experimental Physiology 93: 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Oppenheimer, J. 1966. Ross Harrison’s contributions to experimental embryology. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 40: 525–543.Google Scholar
  44. Passegué, E., and A.J. Wagers. 2006. Regulating quiescence: New insights into hematopoietic stem cell biology. Developmental Cell 10: 415–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sirbasku, D.A., and J.E. Moreno-Cuevas. 2000. Estrogen mitogenic action. II. Negative regulation of the steroid hormone-responsive growth of cell lines derived from human and rodent target tissue tumors and conceptual implications. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology 36: 428–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sonnenschein, Carlos, and Ana M. Soto. 1980. But … are estrogens per se growth-promoting hormones? Journal of the National Cancer Institute 64: 211–215.Google Scholar
  47. Sonnenschein, Carlos, and Ana M. Soto. 1999. The society of cells: Cancer and control of cell proliferation. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Sonnenschein, Carlos, and Ana M. Soto. 2008. Theories of carcinogenesis: An emerging perspective. Seminars in Cancer Biology 18: 372–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sonnenschein, Carlos, and Ana M. Soto. 2011. The death of the cancer cell. Cancer Research 71: 4334–4337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sonnenschein, Carlos, Ana M. Soto, and C.L. Michaelson. 1996. Human serum albumin shares the properties of estrocolyone-I, the inhibitor of the proliferation of estrogen-target cells. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 59: 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Soto, Ana M., and Carlos Sonnenschein. 1987. Cell proliferation of estrogen-sensitive cells: The case for negative control. Endocrine Reviews 8: 44–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Soto, Ana M., and Carlos Sonnenschein. 2004. The somatic mutation theory of cancer: Growing problems with the paradigm? BioEssays 26: 1097–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Soto, Ana M., and Carlos Sonnenschein. 2005. Emergentism as a default: Cancer as a problem of tissue organization. Journal of Biosciences 30: 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Soto, Ana M., and Carlos Sonnenschein. 2011. The tissue organization field theory of cancer: A testable replacement for the somatic mutation theory. BioEssays 33: 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soto, Ana M., Carlos Sonnenschein, and Paul-Antoine Miquel. 2008. On physicalism and downward causation in developmental and cancer biology. Acta Biotheoretica 56: 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wasserstein, A.G. 1996. Death and the internal milieu: Claude Bernard and the origins of experimental medicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 39: 313–326.Google Scholar
  57. Weiss, P., and J.L. Kavanau. 1957. A model of growth control in mathematical terms. Journal of General Physiology 41: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Willmer, E.N. 1965. Cells and tissues in culture: Methods, biology, and physiology. Cambridge, MA: Academic.Google Scholar
  59. Witowski, J.A. 1979. Alexis Carrel and the mysticism of tissue culture. Medical History 23: 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wolfe, Charles T. 2013. Vitalism and the resistance to experimentation on life in the eighteenth century. Journal of the History of Biology 46: 255–282.Google Scholar
  61. Ying, Q.L., J. Wray, J. Nichols, L. Batlle-Morera, B. Doble, J. Woodgett, P. Cohen, and A. Smith. 2008. The ground state of embryonic stem cell self-renewal. Nature 453: 519–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yusuf, I., and D.A. Fruman. 2003. Regulation of quiescence in lymphocytes. Trends in Immunology 24: 380–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yusuf, I., M.G. Kharas, J. Chen, R.Q. Peralta, A. Maruniak, P. Sareen, V.W. Yang, K.H. Kaestner, and D.A. Fruman. 2008. KLF4 is a FOXO target gene that suppresses B cell proliferation. International Immunology 20: 671–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Sonnenschein
    • 1
  • David Lee
    • 1
  • Jonathan Nguyen
    • 1
  • Ana M. Soto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anatomy and Cellular BiologyTufts University School of MedicineBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations