Primary cancers often display high levels of phenotypic and genetic intratumor heterogeneity (ITH). Whereas the mutational and epigenetic mechanisms that generate this heterogeneity are relatively well understood, mechanisms responsible for maintaining this heterogeneity in cancer cell populations, as well as the impact of ITH on clinically important properties of the disease, are less clear. Yet, high levels of ITH have been linked to more aggressive tumor behavior, resistance to therapies, and overall poor prognosis (Marusyk and Polyak, 2010; Meacham and Morrison, 2013; McGranahan and Swanton, 2015; Morris et al., 2016; McGranahan et al., 2017; Dagogo-Jack and Shaw, 2018; Hausser and Alon, 2020; Marusyk et al., 2020). Thus, a deeper understanding of ITH at different stages during cancer progression might result in novel therapeutic strategies directed at altering tumor composition towards decreased malignancy.

ITH can be subdivided into micro-heterogeneity (i.e., cell–cell variability) as well as macro-heterogeneity (i.e., heterogeneous subgroups), yielding a co-existence of either independent genetic subclonal lineages or metastable phenotypic subgroups (Merlo et al., 2006). Despite the rapidly growing interest in assessing ITH, the complex eco-evolutionary dynamics between cancer cells and their environment, the balance between heritable and non-heritable cellular traits, as well as the resulting effects on global tumor behavior remain poorly understood.

In particular, stable co-existence of distinct subpopulations or subclones within tumor cell populations that follow Darwinian dynamics appears to be counterintuitive. Indeed, the maintenance of stable subpopulations with heritable phenotypes within the same tumor indicates the presence of multiple niches producing complex patterns of co-existence, although weak stabilizing selection and drift may also contribute to phenotypic variability. In turn, the co-existence of different subpopulations can profoundly influence global tumor behavior such that elimination of one subpopulation can induce tumor regression or necrotic collapse (Inda et al., 2010; Marusyk et al., 2014). This co-existence can be based on ‘cooperation’ (or ‘mutualism’ in ecological terms) between distinct subpopulations (Merlo et al., 2006; Axelrod et al., 2006; Tabassum and Polyak, 2015; Zhou et al., 2017; Martín-Pardillos et al., 2019). Synergistic interactions between two subpopulations of cancer cells may also permit metastatic spread (Marusyk et al., 2014; Calbo et al., 2011; Neelakantan et al., 2017; Janiszewska et al., 2019). Importantly, reversible phenotype switching seems to have a prominent role in the dynamics of interactions between diverse subclones (Chapman et al., 2014), suggesting that the intratumor phenotypic heterogeneity arising from non-genetic variability (i.e., phenotypic plasticity) permits a rapid, reversible strategy for cancer cells to optimally respond to changing environmental conditions and population fluctuations. In addition, populations of tumor cells also exhibit Allee effects (i.e., positive correlation between population density and individual fitness) in which the proliferation rate paradoxically increases with population size, which promotes aggressive tumor growth (see for instance Korolev et al., 2014; Böttger et al., 2015; Sewalt et al., 2016; Johnson et al., 2019). However, at the moment, investigations on these interactions are limited to few subpopulations (Marusyk et al., 2014; Calbo et al., 2011), molecular interactions (Inda et al., 2010; Vinci et al., 2018; Wu et al., 2010; Cleary et al., 2014), and cancer hallmarks (Chapman et al., 2014; Wagenblast et al., 2015). Moreover, these examples represent a snapshot of tumor progression, while the interactions between subpopulations can be highly dynamic and change over time. To capture these dynamics, we suggest applying an ecological concept termed ‘group phenotypic composition’ (GPC), to understand the ecology/evolutionary dynamics of cancer.

In nature, the function and stability of a group is dependent on the characteristics of the constituent individuals (and/or subgroups composed of individuals sharing common features) and their interactions, which are always in an evolutionary state of flux. Tumors have already been described as composed of functional compartments with a division of labor among these compartments (Grunewald et al., 2011; Hausser et al., 2019) and conceived as a whole consortium of cooperating malignant clones (Ramón Y Cajal et al., 2017). Other studies suggested that phenotypic groups can be defined among tumoral cells on the basis of common expression of phenotypic markers, even if these phenotypic clusters can display genetic and epigenetic heterogeneity (see Box 1). Here, we propose to extend the concept of GPC toward tumor cell populations and investigate how the phenotypic composition of tumors can impact cancer progression and treatment.

GPC in the animal kingdom and its relevance to cancer

Group living is a widespread phenomenon within the animal kingdom and has attracted considerable attention among evolutionary ecologists (Farine et al., 2015; Koenig et al., 2020). Recent advances in this area have highlighted that GPC is a crucial parameter to consider. Farine et al., 2015 define GPC as “any descriptor of the types of phenotypes found within a group. Examples include the average body size of individuals, the variation in male color, or the aggressiveness level of the most aggressive individual in the group. In this framework, ‘groups’ can represent many aspects of the social environments of individuals, including breeding units, social networks, neighborhoods, populations, and communities.” Members in any group, be it individuals in populations or species in communities, express some phenotypic variation at several levels (e.g., activity, behavior, morphology, life-history traits, etc.). The heterogeneous composition of groups provides them with different properties, due to the different average phenotypes, the presence of keystone individuals, and/or the variability in phenotypes etc., that can in return influence group-level outcomes (e.g., foraging success, mating system, predation risk, evolvability). While theory on the implications of GPC is still in its infancy, the concept proved relevant to understand many aspects of group-level dynamics and self-organization (Farine et al., 2015). In addition, selective pressures arising from GPC properties can influence the evolutionary trajectory of individual phenotypes. For instance, large groups composed of individuals with similar phenotypes may benefit from a reduced predation pressure because of the confusion effect that the lack of prey ‘oddity’ generates on predators (Landeau and Terborgh, 1986; Krakauer, 2004). In prey species such as the cladoceran Daphnia magna for which predation risk (by the three-spine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus) is higher on larger individuals (i.e., more profitable preys) and confusion effects operate, some conflicts between individuals with different phenotypes might emerge: both large and small individuals benefit from joining groups composed of large individuals, but the presence of small individuals enhances the predation risk experienced by large ones (Rodgers et al., 2015). Selection from GPC can thus alter the covariance between individual and group phenotypes through the removal of particular phenotypes within generations. In the Daphnia/stickleback system, excluding or avoiding small individuals would be beneficial for large individuals, but it also comes with (energetic) costs, leading to mixed groups in the wild. This example illustrates the kind of complex and reciprocal links that may exist between individuals’ phenotypes and the GPC’s properties. More generally, individual heterogeneity and resulting GPCs result in multiple hierarchical effects that affect collective behavior, from within-group positioning, group coherence, leadership, and collective decision making to group functioning, fission–fusion dynamics, and among group assortment (see Jolles et al., 2020 for a recent review).

Farine et al., 2015 provided a review with many examples as well as a conceptual framework (Figure 1) allowing one to understand and predict when GPC should have important selective consequences. GPC in the animal kingdom has both pervasive consequences for individual fitness and fascinating evolutionary implications, with potential to contribute to many classical questions in ecology and evolution.

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

In so far as tumors are heterogeneous subgroups of cells that interact among each other and with other livings entities, for example host normal cells with the microbiota, it is theoretically possible to examine them within the framework of the GPC. Noticeable ecological and evolutionary singularities however exist, given that most cancers are not transmissible and hence cannot evolve for longer periods than the life expectancy of their host, and because tumors are usually not in competition inside the hosts (except in transmissible tumors like DFTD and DFT2 in Tasmanian devils, see Thomas et al., 2018). Despite these differences for the majority of other cancers, there is still predation of malignant cells by the immune system and competition between cells and/or between clusters of cells within tumors. The extrapolation of Farine et al.’s definition of GPC to cancer cannot totally rely on the same descriptors because groups are composed here of cells, not animals, and thus cells’ specificities need to be considered. For example, phenotypes in animal models that depend on a high level of mobility and rapid communication within the group might not translate well because cancer cells move slowly and communicate slowly by diffusible factors. Similarly, the high mutagenic rate of cancer cells is likely to impact group behavior, while the slow rate of mutation seen in whole organisms is unlikely to significantly alter group functioning. The extent to which mechanisms driving evolution or heterogeneity in cancers might have potentially useful analogs in other group situations still needs to be explored. For instance, promising aspects could include (1) the importance of epigenetic modulation of gene expression in cancer cells vs the Baldwin effect (process by which plasticity facilitates evolution) in whole organisms, (2) how might the asexual nature of cancer cell reproduction influence individual–group evolutionary relationships relative to sexually reproductive individuals in other ecosystems, and (3) what phenotypes in cancer need to be quantified to be able to produce group selection models that are useful for describing progression or influencing clinical practice. Thus, more investigations are required at the moment to fully appreciate what is unique about cancer that will define its individual–group relationships differently from other ecosystems (see also Box 1).

It is traditionally assumed that individual cells are Darwinian units of selection in cancers (Greaves, 2013), as they possess the required prerequisites that include (1) phenotypic variation, (2) differential fitness co-variant with a phenotypic trait, and (3) heritability (Lewontin, 1970). However, some aspects of cancer biology, such as promotion of angiogenesis, evasion of immune predation, or environmental engineering involving remodeling of extracellular matrix require group action. Yet, the evolutionary dynamics that govern these groups (including the level that selection acts on) have been poorly explored (Greaves, 2013; Bertolaso and Dieli, 2017; Lean and Plutynski, 2016). Furthermore, the ecological factors and evolutionary forces shaping these interactions as well as the outcomes of these processes are likely to change during cancer progression. Nevertheless, (1) how the phenotypic composition of a group (i.e., its average phenotype or phenotypic variance) can affect ecological and social processes (e.g., niche construction, competition, cooperation) and (2) how multi-level selection can drive phenotypic covariance among interacting cancer cells are not understood. Following Farine et al., 2015 framework, we propose that addressing the role of GPC as both an agent of selection shaping individual fitness and an emergent property of the individual phenotypes can help understand cancer progression and predict ways that can alter GPC to affect both individual- and group-level outcomes.

How do we define GPC in cancers? We envision a group to (1) be limited to cells that share a set of driver (epi)mutations (but which could subsequently diverge genetically and epigenetically and produce cooperating subgroups each composed of cells sharing at least a common phenotype, see also Box 1), (2) be spatially restricted, given that there are physical limitations to cooperation and competition, and (3) have interactions that are highly dependent on microenvironmental context (considering both other competing normal and malignant cells). Note that we are not including normal cells as part of the malignant group, although its GPC and collective properties will be highly influenced by the interactions with normal cells within the tumor microenvironment.

Soon after initiation, a tumor constitutes a small group, but as it grows, new subgroups can be distinguished, based on new spatial structures and interactions, and its phenotypic composition is likely to change. Whereas specific characteristics, sufficient to define individual subgroups within the GPC still need to be rigorously defined, we envision useful GPC descriptors to include average proliferation rate, degree of genetic or phenotypic heterogeneity, proportion of cells with distinct differentiated states (such as mesenchymal and epithelial for carcinomas), type (luminal and basal, for breast tumors), amount and composition of extracellular matrix, type and numbers of non-malignant cells, proportion of drug-resistant cells, etc.

GPC can be dynamic both in terms of number, types, and proportion of subgroups, and codependency levels between subgroups. For instance, the emergence of macroscopic tumors is dependent on the presence of a threshold number of tumor cells that produce angiogenic factors (Folkman and Klagsbrun, 1987). These factors represent ‘public goods’ that can increase the fitness of all cells, which will ultimately alter the tumor composition. Another example of a public good is the enzyme indoleamine-pyrrole 2,3-dioxygenase, which catalyzes the degradation of tryptophan in the cell’s environment leading to the inhibition of cytotoxic immune responses thereby improving survival of both producing and non-producing cells (Munn and Mellor, 2016). In groups that expand due to sufficiently high proportion of producers, cells that do not produce angiogenic factors (i.e., ‘cheaters’ that rip the benefits of the common goods without incurring the potential cost associated with their production) can potentially outcompete the producers leading to a collapse of the vascular network (Epstein et al., 2017; Gravenmier et al., 2018).

Tumor growth and progression are associated with changes in microenvironmental contexts in space and time (such as acidification, inflammatory response, hypoxia etc.). In turn, these contextual changes would be expected to impact fitness of subgroups of tumor cells. Thus, a GPC that is highly ‘optimal’ (reflected in proliferation and death of subgroup members, as well as in expansion of the group) during the early stages of tumorigenesis (e.g., composed of highly proliferative cells) may not be optimal in a large tumor (which requires vasculature) (Losi et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2016; Saito et al., 2018; Figure 2; steps 2 and 3). Similarly, the transition to a metastatic tumor relies on a different ‘optimal’ GPC (e.g., including a higher proportion of ‘aggressive’ cells) that reflects changes in the tumor microenvironment (Figure 2; step 4). This change in GPC might involve epigenetic changes as well as phenotypic plastic responses in response to microenvironmental and/or paracrine signals, from both cancer and non-cancer cells. In addition to these spatio-temporal contextual changes within dynamic tumors, the differences in the overall context prior to cancer initiation, such as genetic makeup, sex, hormonal environment, aging, are expected to alter the match between GPC and its impact on the fitness of the group (Laconi et al., 2020; Vibishan and Watve, 2020).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Thus, tumoral GPC, and its relationships with the fitness of individual malignant cells in different ecological contexts, may represent a crucial, previously unexplored aspect that influences evolutionary dynamics within tumor cell populations. In this context, GPC will influence selection pressures experienced by individual tumor cells, which will influence individual cell-level outcomes. As the relative proportion and type of interactions among subgroups of tumor cells vary in response to changing microenvironments, tumoral GPCs will also change resulting in either new optimal tumoral GPCs or, potentially, catastrophic imbalances producing tumor extinction (Figure 2; in this case, tumoral GPC can be seen as the target of selection). As discussed further below, it might be possible to affect GPC to achieve desirable therapeutic outcomes, including tumor stasis or extinction.

The GPC concept might also be applicable to circulating tumor cells (CTCs) (see also Box 2). Individual metastatic tumors can be viewed as reproducing groups (Lean and Plutynski, 2016), where CTCs are seeds of successful groups that travel through blood and lymphatic vasculature to reach distant fertile ‘soils’ (tissues, organs) (Pantel and Alix-Panabières, 2019). In many cases, successful metastatic colonization is achieved by clusters of CTCs rather than by individual tumor cells (Heeke et al., 2019). While these clusters represent a minority of the CTCs found in the bloodstream, they have been shown to have a metastatic potential 23–50 times greater than that of their single-cell counterparts (Aceto et al., 2014). Moreover, the presence and size of CTC clusters are associated with worse clinical outcome when compared to single CTCs in multiple cancer types (Murlidhar et al., 2017).

 CTC clusters can consist of similar or different tumor cells (e.g., expressing epithelial or mesenchymal markers). Clusters can also include non-tumor cells (e.g., blood cells, immune cells, and/or stromal cells) that can affect the fitness of cancer cells (Szczerba et al., 2019). According to our terminology, the single CTCs and CTC clusters composed of homogeneous cells would correspond to the simplest expression of a subgroup that, if successful, would proliferate and diversify to create larger groups with new specific GPCs. On the other hand, CTC clusters consisting of different cells can be viewed as small groups with a GPC that can influence their success during the dispersal, dissemination, and colonization steps. Importantly, the GPC of metastasis resulting from CTC clusters can also change over time, and these changes might be essential for the success of metastatic colonization and progression. For instance, dynamic changes in the epithelial and mesenchymal composition of CTC clusters in breast cancer have been associated with disease progression (Yu et al., 2013). Nevertheless, it is less clear whether this heterogeneity reflects potential cooperative interactions among cells within a CTC cluster and whether this change in GPC impacts metastatic efficiency. The extent to which CTC cluster composition should recapitulate the parental GPC (perhaps with modifications) to be successful remains to be determined. We cannot exclude that specific GPCs, different from the parental one are required to target given organs, with convergence between metastastic tumors independent of the localization of their primary tumors (Cunningham et al., 2015). Box 2 discusses CTCs as an example of the GPC dynamics in cancer.

Currently, the major focus of therapeutic development is on directly targeting viability or proliferation of tumor cells. Consideration of the GPC perspective could suggest new therapeutic approaches to achieve desirable clinical outcomes. While, at this point, prerequisite knowledge is still lacking, below we provide several suggestions on the new therapeutic angles inspired from the GPC framework.

First, we should attempt to identify keystone tumor cell subgroups/phenotypes – those critical for the maintenance of tumors and transitions (i.e., those that contribute to the ‘optimum’ GPC, Figure 2) at key steps of their progression (invasion, metastasis, acquisition of therapy resistance), and either target them directly or focus on the mechanisms underlying cross talk among phenotypes. This strategy, compared to those that target the entire heterogeneous tumor, will be more efficient because it would target smaller and more homogenous and less diverse subgroups. This should decrease the risk of emergence of resistant clones. The emergence of therapy resistance is also accompanied by changes in GPC; understanding the specific GPCs that promote resistance should help develop strategies that prevent the acquisition of resistant GPCs. Below we expand on these two complementary approaches and provide specific experimental directions.

In order to gain the ability to consider GPC in therapeutic decision making, we first need to develop approaches to identify keystone subgroups/phenotypes and specific combinations of interacting phenotypes that result in optimum GPCs. Examples of such keystone subgroups and interactions have been identified in multiple experimental contexts (Tabassum and Polyak, 2015). For example, in experimental models of breast cancer heterogeneity, interleukin 11 expressing subpopulations can be responsible for driving tumor growth and metastatic dissemination via mechanisms involving microenvironmental changes (Marusyk et al., 2014). Similarly, aggressive subtypes in glioma and breast cancer can affect, via paracrine signaling, the phenotype and metastatic potential of less aggressive subtypes (Neelakantan et al., 2017; Espinoza-Sánchez et al., 2017). However, transitioning from proof of principle studies toward characterizing GPC in primary tumors and identifying key subpopulations would necessitate stepping out of the dominant focus on molecular mechanisms, following ‘Gene X is a critical regulator of hallmark H’ algorithm, and developing system-level understanding of tumor cell subpopulations and their interactions. Recent advances in single-cell analyses, such as single-cell RNA sequencing and high multiplexing histological analyses, are already providing us with detailed characterization of phenotypes of individual tumor cells and/or subgroups that constitute the GPC. However, in order to transition from simply describing the GPC into identification of keystone subgroups and key biological interactions, we would need to develop network analysis pipelines that explicitly focus on the analyses of expression of receptors and corresponding ligands (including both secreted ligands and extracellular matrix (ECM)), and identify or engineer experimental systems that recapitulate individual interaction nodes, enabling the interrogation of the consequences of their disruption. Moreover, rather than focusing on a single interaction at a time, we will need to develop strategies for co-disrupting redundant interactions responsible for robustness and antifragility of tumor ecosystems.

Second, in many cases of systemic treatment of multisite metastatic disease, individual tumors display marked variability in responses to therapy, ranging from complete elimination to lack of detectable therapeutic responses (e.g., Patel et al., 2021). Comparative analyses of the GPC of ‘successful’ versus ‘failed’ tumors represent another potential approach to interrogate the role of GPC in the development of resistance to therapies. While, traditionally, the explanation sought is in the identification of cell-intrinsic ‘drivers’ of resistance, comprehensive single-cell characterization of pre-treatment biopsies could discriminate between GPCs associated with tumors that succumb to therapy and those that develop resistance. Even if metastases are rarely resected, which hampers their characterization at the cellular/molecular level, such analyses might sometimes be feasible in clinical presentations of multiple skin metastases, such as in Wagle et al., 2011, or in animal models of heterogeneous multi-metastatic disease. A limitation to this suggestion is, however, the fact that certain cells and/or subgroups important for the GPC could be missed for technical reasons.

Third, the phenotypic composition of successful/resistant tumors is also influenced by the ability of tumor cells to switch phenotypes. Therefore, explicitly targeting phenotypic plasticity (independently of cytotoxic/cytostatic effects of treatment) might be able to prevent plastic adaptive changes in GPC and improve therapeutic outcomes. Phenotypic plasticity should not be considered strictly as a means to increase individual/cell-level fitness. In our framework, phenotypic plasticity is also a way for cancer cells to both rapidly change the tumoral GPC to maintain the combination of phenotypes required for progression or overcome the therapeutic suppression of a dominant aggressive phenotype. This means that optimal or suboptimal tumoral GPCs could be restored after such interventions simply as a consequence of these non-genetic events. To circumvent these phenomena, targeting phenotypic plasticity should be relevant, either alone or in combination with targeted therapies (Doherty et al., 2016). This is essential when considering combinations with other therapies targeting one or several particular phenotype(s)/subgroup(s) because alteration of the possibility to change the tumoral GPC should avoid reconstituting the missing subpopulation.

Phenotypic plasticity is extremely relevant especially during the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT). EMT generates mesenchymal-like cells and a variety of intermediate cell states between the epithelial and the mesenchymal state and changes the GPC toward tumor progression and metastasis (Brooks et al., 2015; Dongre and Weinberg, 2019; Rios et al., 2019). Thus, targeting molecular machinery involved in phenotypic rewiring (such as inhibitors of HDAC, KDM, BETs) should limit the evolution of the GPC both during tumor growth and after a therapeutic intervention. Many other molecular mechanisms underlie cell plasticity, for instance the Notch and Wnt development pathways, or those involving transcription factors from the Snail, Zeb, and Twist families, whose role in the generation of plasticity and cell-to-cell heterogeneity in cancer partially overlaps with their role during development and wound healing (Gupta et al., 2019). Deregulation of these transcriptional regulators may allow cancer cells to access resistant phenotypes by rewiring of gene regulatory networks (Marusyk et al., 2020).

More globally, insights can be gained on the role of phenotypic plasticity in affecting tumor GPC using dynamical systems theory (Huang et al., 2009; Jia et al., 2017) where reshaping of the epigenetic landscape in cancer cells allows acquisition of novel abnormal cell states corresponding to ‘cancer attractors’ in the gene regulatory network (Huang et al., 2009). The enhanced cellular stochasticity in cancer cells would facilitate these phenotypic conversions toward novel states (Huang et al., 2009; Li et al., 2016). Stochasticity of gene expression appears to be increased in cancer cells (Jenkinson et al., 2017), and diverging chromatin states and transcriptional heterogeneity produce corrupted coordination of epigenetic modifications (Pastore et al., 2019). Also, the stochastic nature of gene expression fosters a transient resistant phenotype by chance, which can then be stabilized by epigenetic mechanisms (Shaffer et al., 2017). As such, modulating stochasticity, especially through tuning of gene expression variability, might represent a good strategy to control tumoral GPC evolution (reduced phenotypic heterogeneity will limit cooperative interactions). The global epigenetic changes generally observed in cancer cell epigenomes could find their origin in ‘tumor reprogramming’ due to genetic alterations initiating cancer that would contribute to cancer growth less by inducing cell proliferation than by causing ‘developmental reprogramming’ of the epigenome and allowing cells to aberrantly and pathologically differentiate (Vicente-Dueñas et al., 2015; Xiong et al., 2019). Another possibility is that this global destabilization of gene expression could originate from tissue disruption-induced stochasticity (Capp, 2005; Capp, 2017; Capp, 2019; Capp and Bataille, 2020), suggesting that restoring cellular interactions present in the initial tissue for instance with molecules that would mimic healthy cellular interactions would reduce cell stochasticity and restabilize cellular phenotypes (Capp and Bataille, 2020; Capp, 2012; Capp and Bataille, 2018). In any case, disrupting the tumoral GPC will require innovative strategies based on the control of phenotypic plasticity.

Fourth, while currently relevant knowledge is almost entirely lacking, it will be important to understand whether and how the tumoral GPC is reestablished in a secondary tumor, and the role the tumoral GPC plays in metastatic colonization and outgrowth. We can speculate that since metastases can be seeded by individual cells or small groups of cells (Cheung and Ewald, 2016), the odds that the ‘right combination of cells’ is initially present will be very small. Consequently, if the optimum GPC needs to be reestablished at a metastatic site, the failure to do so could contribute (along with the many other hurdles faced by prospective metastases) to the extremely low colonization rate of circulating tumor cells. In addition, the establishment of a new tumor in a completely different tissue microenvironment (e.g., breast cancer metastasis to the bone) should require a GPC that is quite distinct from that in the native site. The growing metastatic tumor would need to adapt to a very different environment, which could be facilitated by phenotypes that secrete cytokines or chemokines that both recruit regional cells into the tumor’s service and impede antagonistic cells like cytotoxic T cells, by other phenotypes that promote degradation of the extracellular matrix and/or acidification, and so forth (Quail and Joyce, 2013). The assembly of such a GPC may (fortunately) represent a substantial hurdle to metastatic success. On the other hand, the seeding metastatic cells may already possess greater phenotypic plasticity and an enhanced capacity for generating genetic and epigenetic heterogeneities.

Fifth, in addition to targeting keystone subgroups, tackling specific interactions (such as clonal cooperation) may be of equal or higher therapeutic benefit due to altering tumoral GPC quality. For instance, disrupting clonal cooperation by targeting key factors was already suggested (Zhou et al., 2017), as well as their shared external products (i.e., ‘public goods’) (Pepper, 2012). A list of potential targets includes members of signaling pathways, such as the proto-oncogenes Wnt1 or Hedgehog, and microenvironment-related factors, such as matrix metalloproteinases (Zhou et al., 2017), although the exact useful target is likely to be specific to each individual tumor type. Inhibition of tumor progression can be achieved by disruption of these clonal cooperative interactions, which impair the tumor ecosystem and the tumoral GPC. While only a few of the many pathways/molecules involved in clonal cooperativity are characterized, it should be expected that the coming years will bring new opportunities to inhibit this aspect of tumor biology.

Tumors can be seen as examples of social heterogeneous groupings. A proper mechanistic understanding of the impact of ITH and tumoral GPC on cancer progression requires bridging oncological sciences with evolutionary ecology. What are the potential advantages of GPC consideration over traditional, reductionistic approach of viewing tumors as collection of specific genetic clones or phenotypic subpopulations? A first obvious benefit of the GPC concept resides in the fact that it permits assessment of some of the functional aspects of cancer dynamics, which are impossible to understand by simply examining cellular collections only. In the same way that we cannot fully understand the biology of any living organisms when examined in isolation from its abiotic and biotic environment (including its conspecific peers), the biology of malignant cells must consider the social context (i.e., the GPC) to which it is exposed. The GPC concept should also permit us to understand phenotypic convergences, when cells differ at the genetic or epigenetic level but accomplish more or less the same tasks (see Box 1).

On the other hand, the utility of considering tumor GPC is currently limited by the lack of criteria to define relevant groups of tumor cells. Strong interdisciplinary research that integrates observational, experimental, and theoretical studies will be crucial to develop methodology to define and categorize GPCs, identify functionally relevant subpopulations within heterogeneous tumors, identify critical interactions between these subpopulations, and identify the parameter values of GPC descriptors that are associated with an ‘optimum’ GPC at each cancer progression step. Such studies will ultimately allow us to understand the impact of GPCs (and the interactions between metastable components of the GPCs and their microenvironments) on the collective behavior of tumors and their evolutionary and clinical trajectories.

In this paper, we did not consider the potential existence of metaphenotypes of structured groups of cells, that is functional clusters, within tumors. Such a situation would yield to different and more complex GPC-related dynamics on tumor progression. While whole tumors are (most often) not in competition within tissues, this can conversely be the case for functional clusters within tumors, suggesting that the GPC of tumors could display a ‘nested structure’. That is, the GPCs of functional clusters within the tumor are also influenced by the competition between groups, but these groups also contribute together to a whole tumoral GPC that is not in a competitive context with other tumors. In addition, if a group within the tumor has a better GPC than others, it can increase in prevalence, with tumor growth then seeding the formation of new GPCs. More research is needed at the moment to explore the extent to which tumor dynamics are influenced by the whole tumor GPC, by GPCs of functional groups that are within tumors, and/or by a mix of both. Also, we need to determine whether there are temporal patterns in these processes, exploring for instance the importance of these different dynamics throughout tumorigenesis. Still, the formation of ‘the right GPC’, appearing in the right condition at the right time, is heavily influenced by chance, stochasticity and spatial context, and thus remains challenging to investigate and act on. For instance, cells that would form a viable GPC for host-to-host transmission may exist but are not co-localizing or cannot be transmitted as a unit during shedding/infection. Similarly, some phenotypes may benefit from an advantage simply because they are close to angiogenic cells, while other GPC-formation candidates in other parts of the tumor will die due to nutrient scarcity. Other information is also needed to determine whether the propensity for developing the ‘right’ GPC (see Figure 2) during tumorigenesis may rely on the individual’s genetic predisposition. It is noteworthy that even for genetic predisposition syndromes that confer the highest probability of developing cancer such as those resulting from inherited dysfunction of BRCA1/2 (predisposing to breast and ovarian cancers) and mismatch repair genes (e.g., Lynch syndrome), a significant proportion of patients (30–40%) do not develop cancer by the age of 70 (Antoniou and Easton, 2006). The GPC might well be an important modulating factor of the risk over time.

Overall, examining tumor GPC and addressing the effects of GPC on individual tumor cell fitness (selective consequences) and the responses of individual cells to the selective consequences of GPC (evolutionary consequences) should improve our understanding of tumor biology and cancer progression. At the moment, it remains mostly an abstract concept because we need to develop novel tools to describe, understand, and monitor the tumoral GPC functional dynamics and its resilience to local disturbances. Also, criteria used to describe groups remain by definition subjective, limiting the possibility at the moment to provide a unique definition of GPC in cancers (see Box 1 for a tentative example). This knowledge will also need to move beyond this theoretical phase to become useful for diagnostics or therapeutic design, providing opportunities for therapies that will specifically and durably disrupt key components and interactions within tumors.

1. 1. Aceto N
   2. Bardia A
   3. Miyamoto DT
   4. Donaldson MC
   5. Wittner BS
   6. Spencer JA
   7. Yu M
   8. Pely A
   9. Engstrom A
   10. Zhu H
   11. Brannigan BW
   12. Kapur R
   13. Stott SL
   14. Shioda T
   15. Ramaswamy S
   16. Ting DT
   17. Lin CP
   18. Toner M
   19. Haber DA
   20. Maheswaran S

   (2014) Circulating tumor cell clusters are oligoclonal precursors of breast Cancer metastasis

   Cell 158:1110–1122.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.07.013

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Antoniou AC
   2. Easton DF

   (2006) Models of genetic susceptibility to breast Cancer

   Oncogene 25:5898–5905.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1209879

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Axelrod R
   2. Axelrod DE
   3. Pienta KJ

   (2006) Evolution of cooperation among tumor cells

   PNAS 103:13474–13479.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0606053103

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Beck B
   2. Blanpain C

   (2013) Unravelling Cancer stem cell potential

   Nature Reviews Cancer 13:727–738.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3597

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Bertolaso M
   2. Dieli AM

   (2017) Cancer and intercellular cooperation

   Royal Society Open Science 4:170470.

   https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170470

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Böttger K
   2. Hatzikirou H
   3. Voss-Böhme A
   4. Cavalcanti-Adam EA
   5. Herrero MA
   6. Deutsch A

   (2015) An emerging allee effect is critical for tumor initiation and persistence

   PLOS Computational Biology 11:e1004366.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004366

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Bramwell G
   2. Schultz AG
   3. Sherman CDH
   4. Giraudeau M
   5. Thomas F
   6. Ujvari B
   7. Dujon AM

   (2021) A review of the potential effects of climate change on disseminated neoplasia with an emphasis on efficient detection in marine bivalve populations

   Science of the Total Environment 775:145134.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145134

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Brooks MD
   2. Burness ML
   3. Wicha MS

   (2015) Therapeutic implications of cellular heterogeneity and plasticity in breast Cancer

   Cell Stem Cell 17:260–271.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2015.08.014

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Calbo J
   2. van Montfort E
   3. Proost N
   4. van Drunen E
   5. Beverloo HB
   6. Meuwissen R
   7. Berns A

   (2011) A functional role for tumor cell heterogeneity in a mouse model of small cell lung Cancer

   Cancer Cell 19:244–256.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccr.2010.12.021

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Caldwell A
    2. Coleby R
    3. Tovar C
    4. Stammnitz MR
    5. Kwon YM
    6. Owen RS
    7. Tringides M
    8. Murchison EP
    9. Skjødt K
    10. Thomas GJ
    11. Kaufman J
    12. Elliott T
    13. Woods GM
    14. Siddle HV

    (2018) The newly-arisen Devil facial tumour disease 2 (DFT2) reveals a mechanism for the emergence of a contagious Cancer

    eLife 7:e35314.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.35314

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Cancer Genome Atlas Network

    (2012) Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours

    Nature 490:61–70.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11412

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Capp JP

    (2005) Stochastic gene expression, disruption of tissue averaging effects and Cancer as a disease of development

    BioEssays 27:1277–1285.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.20326

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Capp JP

    (2012) Stochastic gene expression stabilization as a new therapeutic strategy for Cancer

    BioEssays 34:170–173.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201100149

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Capp JP

    (2017) Tissue disruption increases stochastic gene expression thus producing tumors: cancer initiation without driver mutation

    International Journal of Cancer 140:2408–2413.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.30596

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Capp JP

    (2019) Cancer stem cells: from historical roots to a new perspective

    Journal of Oncology 2019:1–10.

    https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5189232

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Capp JP
    2. Bataille R

    (2018) Multiple myeloma exemplifies a model of Cancer based on tissue disruption as the initiator event

    Frontiers in Oncology 8:355.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2018.00355

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Capp JP
    2. Bataille R

    (2020) Multiple myeloma as a bone disease? The tissue Disruption-Induced cell stochasticity (TiDiS) Theory

    Cancers 12:2158.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12082158

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Castro-Giner F
    2. Aceto N

    (2020) Tracking Cancer progression: from circulating tumor cells to metastasis

    Genome Medicine 12:31.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-020-00728-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Caza F
    2. Bernet E
    3. Veyrier FJ
    4. Betoulle S
    5. St-Pierre Y

    (2020) Hemocytes released in seawater act as trojan horses for spreading of bacterial infections in mussels

    Scientific Reports 10:19696.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76677-z

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Chapman A
    2. Fernandez del Ama L
    3. Ferguson J
    4. Kamarashev J
    5. Wellbrock C
    6. Hurlstone A

    (2014) Heterogeneous tumor subpopulations cooperate to drive invasion

    Cell Reports 8:688–695.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.06.045

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Cheung KJ
    2. Padmanaban V
    3. Silvestri V
    4. Schipper K
    5. Cohen JD
    6. Fairchild AN
    7. Gorin MA
    8. Verdone JE
    9. Pienta KJ
    10. Bader JS
    11. Ewald AJ

    (2016) Polyclonal breast Cancer metastases arise from collective dissemination of keratin 14-expressing tumor cell clusters

    PNAS 113:E854–E863.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508541113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Cheung KJ
    2. Ewald AJ

    (2016) A collective route to metastasis: seeding by tumor cell clusters

    Science 352:167–169.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf6546

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Cleary AS
    2. Leonard TL
    3. Gestl SA
    4. Gunther EJ

    (2014) Tumour cell heterogeneity maintained by cooperating subclones in Wnt-driven mammary cancers

    Nature 508:113–117.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13187

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Cunningham JJ
    2. Brown JS
    3. Vincent TL
    4. Gatenby RA

    (2015) Divergent and convergent evolution in metastases suggest treatment strategies based on specific metastatic sites

    Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health 2015:76–87.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/emph/eov006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Dagogo-Jack I
    2. Shaw AT

    (2018) Tumour heterogeneity and resistance to Cancer therapies

    Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 15:81–94.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.166

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Dalerba P
    2. Kalisky T
    3. Sahoo D
    4. Rajendran PS
    5. Rothenberg ME
    6. Leyrat AA
    7. Sim S
    8. Okamoto J
    9. Johnston DM
    10. Qian D
    11. Zabala M
    12. Bueno J
    13. Neff NF
    14. Wang J
    15. Shelton AA
    16. Visser B
    17. Hisamori S
    18. Shimono Y
    19. van de Wetering M
    20. Clevers H
    21. Clarke MF
    22. Quake SR

    (2011) Single-cell dissection of transcriptional heterogeneity in human Colon tumors

    Nature Biotechnology 29:1120–1127.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2038

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Dingli D
    2. Nowak MA

    (2006) Cancer biology: infectious tumour cells

    Nature 443:35–36.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/443035a

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Doherty M
    2. Smigiel J
    3. Junk D
    4. Jackson M

    (2016) Cancer stem cell plasticity drives therapeutic resistance

    Cancers 8:8.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers8010008

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Dongre A
    2. Weinberg RA

    (2019) New insights into the mechanisms of epithelial-mesenchymal transition and implications for Cancer

    Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 20:69–84.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-018-0080-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Duda DG
    2. Duyverman AM
    3. Kohno M
    4. Snuderl M
    5. Steller EJ
    6. Fukumura D
    7. Jain RK

    (2010) Malignant cells facilitate lung metastasis by bringing their own soil

    PNAS 107:21677–21682.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016234107

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Dujon AM
    2. Gatenby RA
    3. Bramwell G
    4. MacDonald N
    5. Dohrmann E
    6. Raven N
    7. Schultz A
    8. Hamede R
    9. Gérard AL
    10. Giraudeau M
    11. Thomas F
    12. Ujvari B

    (2020a) Transmissible cancers in an evolutionary perspective

    iScience 23:101269.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101269

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Dujon AM
    2. Schofield G
    3. Bramwell G
    4. Raven N
    5. Hamede R
    6. Thomas F
    7. Ujvari B

    (2020b) Global meta‐analysis of over 50 years of multidisciplinary and international collaborations on transmissible cancers

    Evolutionary Applications 13:1745–1755.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12938

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Dujon AM
    2. Bramwell G
    3. Roche B
    4. Thomas F
    5. Ujvari B

    (2021) Transmissible cancers in mammals and bivalves: how many examples are there?: predictions indicate widespread occurrence

    BioEssays: News and Reviews in Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology 43:e2000222.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202000222

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Epstein T
    2. Gatenby RA
    3. Brown JS

    (2017) The warburg effect as an adaptation of Cancer cells to rapid fluctuations in energy demand

    PLOS ONE 12:e0185085.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185085

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Espinoza-Sánchez NA
    2. Vadillo E
    3. Balandrán JC
    4. Monroy-García A
    5. Pelayo R
    6. Fuentes-Pananá EM

    (2017) Evidence of lateral transmission of aggressive features between different types of breast Cancer cells

    International Journal of Oncology 51:1482–1496.

    https://doi.org/10.3892/ijo.2017.4128

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Farine DR
    2. Montiglio PO
    3. Spiegel O

    (2015) From individuals to groups and back: the evolutionary implications of group phenotypic composition

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 30:609–621.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.07.005

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Flavahan WA
    2. Gaskell E
    3. Bernstein BE

    (2017) Epigenetic plasticity and the hallmarks of Cancer

    Science 357:eaal2380.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal2380

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Folkman J
    2. Kalluri R

    (2004) Cancer without disease

    Nature 427:787.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/427787a

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Folkman J
    2. Klagsbrun M

    (1987) Angiogenic factors

    Science 235:442–447.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.2432664

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Giuliano M
    2. Shaikh A
    3. Lo HC
    4. Arpino G
    5. De Placido S
    6. Zhang XH
    7. Cristofanilli M
    8. Schiff R
    9. Trivedi MV

    (2018) Perspective on circulating tumor cell clusters: why it takes a village to metastasize

    Cancer Research 78:845–852.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-2748

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Gkountela S
    2. Castro-Giner F
    3. Szczerba BM
    4. Vetter M
    5. Landin J
    6. Scherrer R
    7. Krol I
    8. Scheidmann MC
    9. Beisel C
    10. Stirnimann CU
    11. Kurzeder C
    12. Heinzelmann-Schwarz V
    13. Rochlitz C
    14. Weber WP
    15. Aceto N

    (2019) Circulating tumor cell clustering shapes DNA methylation to enable metastasis seeding

    Cell 176:98–112.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.11.046

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Gravenmier CA
    2. Siddique M
    3. Gatenby RA

    (2018) Adaptation to stochastic temporal variations in intratumoral blood flow: the warburg effect as a bet hedging strategy

    Bulletin of Mathematical Biology 80:954–970.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11538-017-0261-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Greaves M

    (2013) Cancer stem cells as 'units of selection'

    Evolutionary Applications 6:102–108.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Grunewald TG
    2. Herbst SM
    3. Heinze J
    4. Burdach S

    (2011) Understanding tumor heterogeneity as functional compartments--superorganisms revisited

    Journal of Translational Medicine 9:79.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5876-9-79

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Gupta PB
    2. Fillmore CM
    3. Jiang G
    4. Shapira SD
    5. Tao K
    6. Kuperwasser C
    7. Lander ES

    (2011) Stochastic state transitions give rise to phenotypic equilibrium in populations of Cancer cells

    Cell 146:633–644.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.07.026

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Gupta PB
    2. Pastushenko I
    3. Skibinski A
    4. Blanpain C
    5. Kuperwasser C

    (2019) Phenotypic plasticity: driver of Cancer initiation, progression, and therapy resistance

    Cell Stem Cell 24:65–78.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2018.11.011

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Harmelin A
    2. Pinthus JH
    3. Katzir N
    4. Kapon A
    5. Volcani Y
    6. Amariglio EN
    7. Rehavi G

    (2001) Use of a murine xenograft model for canine transmissible venereal tumor

    American Journal of Veterinary Research 62:907–911.

    https://doi.org/10.2460/ajvr.2001.62.907

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Hausser J
    2. Szekely P
    3. Bar N
    4. Zimmer A
    5. Sheftel H
    6. Caldas C
    7. Alon U

    (2019) Tumor diversity and the trade-off between universal Cancer tasks

    Nature Communications 10:5423.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13195-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Hausser J
    2. Alon U

    (2020) Tumour heterogeneity and the evolutionary trade-offs of Cancer

    Nature Reviews Cancer 20:247–257.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-020-0241-6

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Heeke S
    2. Mograbi B
    3. Alix-Panabières C
    4. Hofman P

    (2019) Never travel alone: the crosstalk of circulating tumor cells and the blood microenvironment

    Cells 8:714.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/cells8070714

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Herath S
    2. Razavi Bazaz S
    3. Monkman J
    4. Ebrahimi Warkiani M
    5. Richard D
    6. O'Byrne K
    7. Kulasinghe A

    (2020) Circulating tumor cell clusters: insights into tumour dissemination and metastasis

    Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics 20:1139–1147.

    https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2020.1846523

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Holmes JM

    (1981) Measurement of the rate of death of canine transmissible venereal tumour cells transplanted into dogs and nude mice

    Research in Veterinary Science 30:248–250.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-5288(18)32592-X

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. Book

    1. House M

    (1997a)

    Transmission of Disseminated Neoplasia in the Soft Shell Clam, Mya Arenaria [Dissertation]

    Oregon State University.

    • Google Scholar
54. Book

    1. House M

    (1997b)

    Transmission of Disseminated Neoplasia in the Soft Shell Clam Mya Arenaria

    Oregon State University.

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Huang S
    2. Ernberg I
    3. Kauffman S

    (2009) Cancer attractors: a systems view of tumors from a gene network dynamics and developmental perspective

    Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology 20:869–876.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.07.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Hurtado P
    2. Martínez-Pena I
    3. Piñeiro R

    (2020) Dangerous liaisons: circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and Cancer-Associated fibroblasts (CAFs)

    Cancers 12:2861.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12102861

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Inda MM
    2. Bonavia R
    3. Mukasa A
    4. Narita Y
    5. Sah DW
    6. Vandenberg S
    7. Brennan C
    8. Johns TG
    9. Bachoo R
    10. Hadwiger P
    11. Tan P
    12. Depinho RA
    13. Cavenee W
    14. Furnari F

    (2010) Tumor heterogeneity is an active process maintained by a mutant EGFR-induced cytokine circuit in glioblastoma

    Genes & Development 24:1731–1745.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1890510

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Jackson HW
    2. Fischer JR
    3. Zanotelli VRT
    4. Ali HR
    5. Mechera R
    6. Soysal SD
    7. Moch H
    8. Muenst S
    9. Varga Z
    10. Weber WP
    11. Bodenmiller B

    (2020) The single-cell pathology landscape of breast Cancer

    Nature 578:615–620.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1876-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. James S
    2. Jennings G
    3. Kwon YM
    4. Stammnitz M
    5. Fraik A
    6. Storfer A
    7. Comte S
    8. Pemberton D
    9. Fox S
    10. Brown B
    11. Pye R
    12. Woods G
    13. Lyons B
    14. Hohenlohe PA
    15. McCallum H
    16. Siddle H
    17. Thomas F
    18. Ujvari B
    19. Murchison EP
    20. Jones M
    21. Hamede R

    (2019) Tracing the rise of malignant cell lines: distribution, epidemiology and evolutionary interactions of two transmissible cancers in tasmanian devils

    Evolutionary Applications 12:1772–1780.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12831

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Janiszewska M
    2. Tabassum DP
    3. Castaño Z
    4. Cristea S
    5. Yamamoto KN
    6. Kingston NL
    7. Murphy KC
    8. Shu S
    9. Harper NW
    10. Del Alcazar CG
    11. Alečković M
    12. Ekram MB
    13. Cohen O
    14. Kwak M
    15. Qin Y
    16. Laszewski T
    17. Luoma A
    18. Marusyk A
    19. Wucherpfennig KW
    20. Wagle N
    21. Fan R
    22. Michor F
    23. McAllister SS
    24. Polyak K

    (2019) Subclonal cooperation drives metastasis by modulating local and systemic immune microenvironments

    Nature Cell Biology 21:879–888.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-019-0346-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Jenkinson G
    2. Pujadas E
    3. Goutsias J
    4. Feinberg AP

    (2017) Potential energy landscapes identify the information-theoretic nature of the epigenome

    Nature Genetics 49:719–729.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3811

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Jia D
    2. Jolly MK
    3. Kulkarni P
    4. Levine H

    (2017) Phenotypic plasticity and cell fate decisions in Cancer: insights from dynamical systems theory

    Cancers 9:70.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers9070070

    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Johnson KE
    2. Howard G
    3. Mo W
    4. Strasser MK
    5. Lima E
    6. Huang S
    7. Brock A

    (2019) Cancer cell population growth kinetics at low densities deviate from the exponential growth model and suggest an allee effect

    PLOS Biology 17:e3000399.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000399

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Jolles JW
    2. King AJ
    3. Killen SS

    (2020) The role of individual heterogeneity in collective animal behaviour

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 35:278–291.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.11.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. Book

    1. Koenig WD
    2. Mumme RL
    3. Groups LI

    (2020) Population Ecology of the Cooperatively Breeding Acorn Woodpecker (MPB-24), 24

    Princeton University Press.

    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvx5wc1m

    • Google Scholar
66. 1. Korolev KS
    2. Xavier JB
    3. Gore J

    (2014) Turning ecology and evolution against Cancer

    Nature Reviews Cancer 14:371–380.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3712

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Krakauer DC

    (2004) Groups confuse predators by exploiting perceptual bottlenecks: a connectionist model of the confusion effect

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 36:421–429.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177338

    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Kreiss A
    2. Tovar C
    3. Obendorf DL
    4. Dun K
    5. Woods GM

    (2011) A murine xenograft model for a transmissible Cancer in tasmanian devils

    Veterinary Pathology 48:475–481.

    https://doi.org/10.1177/0300985810380398

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Kwon YM
    2. Gori K
    3. Park N
    4. Potts N
    5. Swift K
    6. Wang J
    7. Stammnitz MR
    8. Cannell N
    9. Baez-Ortega A
    10. Comte S
    11. Fox S
    12. Harmsen C
    13. Huxtable S
    14. Jones M
    15. Kreiss A
    16. Lawrence C
    17. Lazenby B
    18. Peck S
    19. Pye R
    20. Woods G
    21. Zimmermann M
    22. Wedge DC
    23. Pemberton D
    24. Stratton MR
    25. Hamede R
    26. Murchison EP

    (2020) Evolution and lineage dynamics of a transmissible Cancer in tasmanian devils

    PLOS Biology 18:e3000926.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000926

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Labuschagne CF
    2. Cheung EC
    3. Blagih J
    4. Domart MC
    5. Vousden KH

    (2019) Cell clustering promotes a metabolic switch that supports metastatic colonization

    Cell Metabolism 30:720–734.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.07.014

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Laconi E
    2. Marongiu F
    3. DeGregori J

    (2020) Cancer as a disease of old age: changing mutational and microenvironmental landscapes

    British Journal of Cancer 122:943–952.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-019-0721-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
72. 1. Landeau L
    2. Terborgh J

    (1986) Oddity and the ‘confusion effect’ in predation

    Animal Behaviour 34:1372–1380.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80208-1

    • Google Scholar
73. 1. Lean C
    2. Plutynski A

    (2016) The evolution of failure: explaining Cancer as an evolutionary process

    Biology & Philosophy 31:39–57.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-015-9511-1

    • Google Scholar
74. 1. Lee JY
    2. Yoon JK
    3. Kim B
    4. Kim S
    5. Kim MA
    6. Lim H
    7. Bang D
    8. Song YS

    (2015) Tumor evolution and intratumor heterogeneity of an epithelial ovarian Cancer investigated using next-generation sequencing

    BMC Cancer 15:85.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1077-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
75. 1. Lewontin RC

    (1970) The units of selection

    Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1:1–18.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.01.110170.000245

    • Google Scholar
76. 1. Li Q
    2. Wennborg A
    3. Aurell E
    4. Dekel E
    5. Zou JZ
    6. Xu Y
    7. Huang S
    8. Ernberg I

    (2016) Dynamics inside the Cancer cell attractor reveal cell heterogeneity, limits of stability, and escape

    PNAS 113:2672–2677.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519210113

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
77. 1. Liau BB
    2. Sievers C
    3. Donohue LK
    4. Gillespie SM
    5. Flavahan WA
    6. Miller TE
    7. Venteicher AS
    8. Hebert CH
    9. Carey CD
    10. Rodig SJ
    11. Shareef SJ
    12. Najm FJ
    13. van Galen P
    14. Wakimoto H
    15. Cahill DP
    16. Rich JN
    17. Aster JC
    18. Suvà ML
    19. Patel AP
    20. Bernstein BE

    (2017) Adaptive chromatin remodeling drives glioblastoma stem cell plasticity and drug tolerance

    Cell Stem Cell 20:233–246.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2016.11.003

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
78. 1. Losi L
    2. Baisse B
    3. Bouzourene H
    4. Benhattar J

    (2005) Evolution of intratumoral genetic heterogeneity during colorectal Cancer progression

    Carcinogenesis 26:916–922.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgi044

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
79. 1. Martín-Pardillos A
    2. Valls Chiva Á
    3. Bande Vargas G
    4. Hurtado Blanco P
    5. Piñeiro Cid R
    6. Guijarro PJ
    7. Hümmer S
    8. Bejar Serrano E
    9. Rodriguez-Casanova A
    10. Diaz-Lagares Á
    11. Castellvi J
    12. Miravet-Verde S
    13. Serrano L
    14. Lluch-Senar M
    15. Sebastian V
    16. Bribian A
    17. López-Mascaraque L
    18. López-López R
    19. Ramón Y Cajal S

    (2019) The role of clonal communication and heterogeneity in breast Cancer

    BMC Cancer 19:666.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5883-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
80. 1. Marusyk A
    2. Almendro V
    3. Polyak K

    (2012) Intra-tumour heterogeneity: a looking glass for Cancer?

    Nature Reviews Cancer 12:323–334.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3261

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
81. 1. Marusyk A
    2. Tabassum DP
    3. Altrock PM
    4. Almendro V
    5. Michor F
    6. Polyak K

    (2014) Non-cell-autonomous driving of tumour growth supports sub-clonal heterogeneity

    Nature 514:54–58.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13556

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
82. 1. Marusyk A
    2. Janiszewska M
    3. Polyak K

    (2020) Intratumor heterogeneity: the rosetta stone of therapy resistance

    Cancer Cell 37:471–484.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2020.03.007

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
83. 1. Marusyk A
    2. Polyak K

    (2010) Tumor heterogeneity: causes and consequences

    Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer 1805:105–117.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2009.11.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
84. 1. McCallum H
    2. Jones M
    3. Hawkins C
    4. Hamede R
    5. Lachish S
    6. Sinn DL
    7. Beeton N
    8. Lazenby B

    (2009) Transmission dynamics of tasmanian Devil facial tumor disease may lead to disease-induced extinction

    Ecology 90:3379–3392.

    https://doi.org/10.1890/08-1763.1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
85. 1. McGranahan N
    2. Swanton C
    3. Heterogeneity C

    (2017) Tumor evolution: past, present, and the future

    Cell 168:613–628.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.01.018

    • Google Scholar
86. 1. McGranahan N
    2. Swanton C

    (2015) Biological and therapeutic impact of intratumor heterogeneity in Cancer evolution

    Cancer Cell 27:15–26.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2014.12.001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
87. 1. Meacham CE
    2. Morrison SJ

    (2013) Tumour heterogeneity and Cancer cell plasticity

    Nature 501:328–337.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12624

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
88. 1. Merlo LM
    2. Pepper JW
    3. Reid BJ
    4. Maley CC

    (2006) Cancer as an evolutionary and ecological process

    Nature Reviews Cancer 6:924–935.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2013

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
89. 1. Metzger MJ
    2. Villalba A
    3. Carballal MJ
    4. Iglesias D
    5. Sherry J
    6. Reinisch C
    7. Muttray AF
    8. Baldwin SA
    9. Goff SP

    (2016) Widespread transmission of independent Cancer lineages within multiple bivalve species

    Nature 534:705–709.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature18599

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
90. 1. Morris LG
    2. Riaz N
    3. Desrichard A
    4. Şenbabaoğlu Y
    5. Hakimi AA
    6. Makarov V
    7. Reis-Filho JS
    8. Chan TA

    (2016) Pan-cancer analysis of intratumor heterogeneity as a prognostic determinant of survival

    Oncotarget 7:10051–10063.

    https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.7067

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
91. 1. Munn DH
    2. Mellor AL

    (2016) IDO in the tumor microenvironment: inflammation, Counter-Regulation, and tolerance

    Trends in Immunology 37:193–207.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.it.2016.01.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
92. 1. Murlidhar V
    2. Reddy RM
    3. Fouladdel S
    4. Zhao L
    5. Ishikawa MK
    6. Grabauskiene S
    7. Zhang Z
    8. Lin J
    9. Chang AC
    10. Carrott P
    11. Lynch WR
    12. Orringer MB
    13. Kumar-Sinha C
    14. Palanisamy N
    15. Beer DG
    16. Wicha MS
    17. Ramnath N
    18. Azizi E
    19. Nagrath S

    (2017) Poor prognosis indicated by venous circulating tumor cell clusters in Early-Stage lung cancers

    Cancer Research 77:5194–5206.

    https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-16-2072

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
93. 1. Neelakantan D
    2. Zhou H
    3. Oliphant MUJ
    4. Zhang X
    5. Simon LM
    6. Henke DM
    7. Shaw CA
    8. Wu MF
    9. Hilsenbeck SG
    10. White LD
    11. Lewis MT
    12. Ford HL

    (2017) EMT cells increase breast Cancer metastasis via paracrine GLI activation in neighbouring tumour cells

    Nature Communications 8:15773.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15773

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
94. 1. Nguyen LV
    2. Vanner R
    3. Dirks P
    4. Eaves CJ

    (2012) Cancer stem cells: an evolving concept

    Nature Reviews Cancer 12:133–143.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3184

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
95. 1. Nguyen A
    2. Yoshida M
    3. Goodarzi H
    4. Tavazoie SF

    (2016) Highly variable Cancer subpopulations that exhibit enhanced transcriptome variability and metastatic fitness

    Nature Communications 7:11246.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11246

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
96. 1. O'Neill ID

    (2011) Concise review: transmissible animal tumors as models of the Cancer stem-cell process

    Stem Cells 29:1909–1914.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.751

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
97. 1. Padmanaban V
    2. Krol I
    3. Suhail Y
    4. Szczerba BM
    5. Aceto N
    6. Bader JS
    7. Ewald AJ

    (2019) E-cadherin is required for metastasis in multiple models of breast Cancer

    Nature 573:439–444.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1526-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
98. 1. Pantel K
    2. Alix-Panabières C

    (2019) Liquid biopsy and minimal residual disease - latest advances and implications for cure

    Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 16:409–424.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-019-0187-3

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
99. 1. Pastore A
    2. Gaiti F
    3. Lu SX
    4. Brand RM
    5. Kulm S
    6. Chaligne R
    7. Gu H
    8. Huang KY
    9. Stamenova EK
    10. Béguelin W
    11. Jiang Y
    12. Schulman RC
    13. Kim KT
    14. Alonso A
    15. Allan JN
    16. Furman RR
    17. Gnirke A
    18. Wu CJ
    19. Melnick AM
    20. Meissner A
    21. Bernstein BE
    22. Abdel-Wahab O
    23. Landau DA

    (2019) Corrupted coordination of epigenetic modifications leads to diverging chromatin states and transcriptional heterogeneity in CLL

    Nature Communications 10:1874.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09645-5

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
100. 1. Patel RR
     2. Verma V
     3. Barsoumian HB
     4. Ning MS
     5. Chun SG
     6. Tang C
     7. Chang JY
     8. Lee PP
     9. Gandhi S
     10. Balter P
     11. Dunn JD
     12. Chen D
     13. Puebla-Osorio N
     14. Cortez MA
     15. Welsh JW

     (2021) Use of Multi-Site radiation therapy for systemic disease control

     International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics 109:352–364.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2020.08.025

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
101. 1. Pearse AM
     2. Swift K
     3. Hodson P
     4. Hua B
     5. McCallum H
     6. Pyecroft S
     7. Taylor R
     8. Eldridge MD
     9. Belov K

     (2012) Evolution in a transmissible Cancer: a study of the chromosomal changes in Devil facial tumor (DFT) as it spreads through the wild tasmanian Devil population

     Cancer Genetics 205:101–112.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cancergen.2011.12.001

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
102. 1. Pepper JW

     (2012) Drugs that target pathogen public goods are robust against evolved drug resistance

     Evolutionary Applications 5:757–761.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2012.00254.x

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
103. 1. Pisco AO
     2. Huang S

     (2015) Non-genetic Cancer cell plasticity and therapy-induced stemness in tumour relapse: 'What does not kill me strengthens me'

     British Journal of Cancer 112:1725–1732.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.146

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
104. 1. Pye RJ
     2. Pemberton D
     3. Tovar C
     4. Tubio JM
     5. Dun KA
     6. Fox S
     7. Darby J
     8. Hayes D
     9. Knowles GW
     10. Kreiss A
     11. Siddle HV
     12. Swift K
     13. Lyons AB
     14. Murchison EP
     15. Woods GM

     (2016) A second transmissible Cancer in tasmanian devils

     PNAS 113:374–379.

     https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1519691113

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
105. 1. Quail DF
     2. Joyce JA

     (2013) Microenvironmental regulation of tumor progression and metastasis

     Nature Medicine 19:1423–1437.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3394

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
106. 1. Ramón Y Cajal S
     2. Capdevila C
     3. Hernandez-Losa J
     4. De Mattos-Arruda L
     5. Ghosh A
     6. Lorent J
     7. Larsson O
     8. Aasen T
     9. Postovit LM
     10. Topisirovic I

     (2017) Cancer as an ecomolecular disease and a neoplastic consortium

     Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer 1868:484–499.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2017.09.004

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
107. 1. Rios AC
     2. Capaldo BD
     3. Vaillant F
     4. Pal B
     5. van Ineveld R
     6. Dawson CA
     7. Chen Y
     8. Nolan E
     9. Fu NY
     10. Jackling FC
     11. Devi S
     12. Clouston D
     13. Whitehead L
     14. Smyth GK
     15. Mueller SN
     16. Lindeman GJ
     17. Visvader JE
     18. 3DTCLSM Group

     (2019) Intraclonal plasticity in mammary tumors revealed through Large-Scale Single-Cell resolution 3D imaging

     Cancer Cell 35:618–632.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccell.2019.02.010

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
108. 1. Rodgers GM
     2. Downing B
     3. Morrell LJ

     (2015) Prey body size mediates the predation risk associated with being "odd"

     Behavioral Ecology 26:242–246.

     https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru185

     • Google Scholar
109. 1. Saito T
     2. Niida A
     3. Uchi R
     4. Hirata H
     5. Komatsu H
     6. Sakimura S
     7. Hayashi S
     8. Nambara S
     9. Kuroda Y
     10. Ito S
     11. Eguchi H
     12. Masuda T
     13. Sugimachi K
     14. Tobo T
     15. Nishida H
     16. Daa T
     17. Chiba K
     18. Shiraishi Y
     19. Yoshizato T
     20. Kodama M
     21. Okimoto T
     22. Mizukami K
     23. Ogawa R
     24. Okamoto K
     25. Shuto M
     26. Fukuda K
     27. Matsui Y
     28. Shimamura T
     29. Hasegawa T
     30. Doki Y
     31. Nagayama S
     32. Yamada K
     33. Kato M
     34. Shibata T
     35. Mori M
     36. Aburatani H
     37. Murakami K
     38. Suzuki Y
     39. Ogawa S
     40. Miyano S
     41. Mimori K

     (2018) A temporal shift of the evolutionary principle shaping intratumor heterogeneity in colorectal Cancer

     Nature Communications 9:2884.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05226-0

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
110. 1. Sewalt L
     2. Harley K
     3. van Heijster P
     4. Balasuriya S

     (2016) Influences of allee effects in the spreading of malignant tumours

     Journal of Theoretical Biology 394:77–92.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.12.024

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
111. 1. Shaffer SM
     2. Dunagin MC
     3. Torborg SR
     4. Torre EA
     5. Emert B
     6. Krepler C
     7. Beqiri M
     8. Sproesser K
     9. Brafford PA
     10. Xiao M
     11. Eggan E
     12. Anastopoulos IN
     13. Vargas-Garcia CA
     14. Singh A
     15. Nathanson KL
     16. Herlyn M
     17. Raj A

     (2017) Rare cell variability and drug-induced reprogramming as a mode of Cancer drug resistance

     Nature 546:431–435.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22794

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
112. 1. Sharma A
     2. Cao EY
     3. Kumar V
     4. Zhang X
     5. Leong HS
     6. Wong AML
     7. Ramakrishnan N
     8. Hakimullah M
     9. Teo HMV
     10. Chong FT
     11. Chia S
     12. Thangavelu MT
     13. Kwang XL
     14. Gupta R
     15. Clark JR
     16. Periyasamy G
     17. Iyer NG
     18. DasGupta R

     (2018) Longitudinal single-cell RNA sequencing of patient-derived primary cells reveals drug-induced infidelity in stem cell hierarchy

     Nature Communications 9:4931.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07261-3

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
113. 1. Sunila I

     (1991) Respiration of sarcoma cells from the soft-shell clam Mya arenaria L. under various conditions

     Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 150:19–29.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0981(91)90103-4

     • Google Scholar
114. 1. Sunila I
     2. Farley CA

     (1989) Environmental limits for survival of sarcoma cells from the soft-shell clam Mya arenaria

     Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 7:111–115.

     https://doi.org/10.3354/dao007111

     • Google Scholar
115. 1. Szczerba BM
     2. Castro-Giner F
     3. Vetter M
     4. Krol I
     5. Gkountela S
     6. Landin J
     7. Scheidmann MC
     8. Donato C
     9. Scherrer R
     10. Singer J
     11. Beisel C
     12. Kurzeder C
     13. Heinzelmann-Schwarz V
     14. Rochlitz C
     15. Weber WP
     16. Beerenwinkel N
     17. Aceto N

     (2019) Neutrophils escort circulating tumour cells to enable cell cycle progression

     Nature 566:553–557.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-0915-y

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
116. 1. Tabassum DP
     2. Polyak K

     (2015) Tumorigenesis: it takes a village

     Nature Reviews Cancer 15:473–483.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3971

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
117. 1. Thomas F
     2. Kareva I
     3. Raven N
     4. Hamede R
     5. Pujol P
     6. Roche B
     7. Ujvari B

     (2018) Evolved dependence in response to Cancer

     Trends in Ecology & Evolution 33:269–276.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.01.012

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
118. 1. Ujvari B
     2. Gatenby RA
     3. Thomas F

     (2016a) The evolutionary ecology of transmissible cancers

     Infection, Genetics and Evolution 39:293–303.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meegid.2016.02.005

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
119. 1. Ujvari B
     2. Gatenby RA
     3. Thomas F

     (2016b) Transmissible cancers, are they more common than thought?

     Evolutionary Applications 9:633–634.

     https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.12372

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
120. Book

     1. Ujvari B
     2. Gatenby RA
     3. Thomas F

     (2017) Chapter 12 - Transmissible Cancer: The Evolution of Interindividual Metastasis

     In: Ujvari B, Roche B, Thomas F, editors. Ecology and Evolution of Cancer: Academic Press. Wiley. pp. 167–179.

     https://doi.org/10.1002/icl3.1020

     • Google Scholar
121. 1. Vibishan B
     2. Watve MG

     (2020) Context-dependent selection as the keystone in the somatic evolution of Cancer

     Scientific Reports 10:4223.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61046-7

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
122. 1. Vicente-Dueñas C
     2. Hauer J
     3. Ruiz-Roca L
     4. Ingenhag D
     5. Rodríguez-Meira A
     6. Auer F
     7. Borkhardt A
     8. Sánchez-García I

     (2015) Tumoral stem cell reprogramming as a driver of Cancer: theory, biological models, implications in Cancer therapy

     Seminars in Cancer Biology 32:3–9.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2014.02.001

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
123. 1. Vinci M
     2. Burford A
     3. Molinari V
     4. Kessler K
     5. Popov S
     6. Clarke M
     7. Taylor KR
     8. Pemberton HN
     9. Lord CJ
     10. Gutteridge A
     11. Forshew T
     12. Carvalho D
     13. Marshall LV
     14. Qin EY
     15. Ingram WJ
     16. Moore AS
     17. Ng HK
     18. Trabelsi S
     19. H'mida-Ben Brahim D
     20. Entz-Werle N
     21. Zacharoulis S
     22. Vaidya S
     23. Mandeville HC
     24. Bridges LR
     25. Martin AJ
     26. Al-Sarraj S
     27. Chandler C
     28. Sunol M
     29. Mora J
     30. de Torres C
     31. Cruz O
     32. Carcaboso AM
     33. Monje M
     34. Mackay A
     35. Jones C

     (2018) Functional diversity and cooperativity between subclonal populations of pediatric glioblastoma and diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma cells

     Nature Medicine 24:1204–1215.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0086-7

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
124. 1. Wagenblast E
     2. Soto M
     3. Gutiérrez-Ángel S
     4. Hartl CA
     5. Gable AL
     6. Maceli AR
     7. Erard N
     8. Williams AM
     9. Kim SY
     10. Dickopf S
     11. Harrell JC
     12. Smith AD
     13. Perou CM
     14. Wilkinson JE
     15. Hannon GJ
     16. Knott SR

     (2015) A model of breast Cancer heterogeneity reveals vascular mimicry as a driver of metastasis

     Nature 520:358–362.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14403

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
125. 1. Wagle N
     2. Emery C
     3. Berger MF
     4. Davis MJ
     5. Sawyer A
     6. Pochanard P
     7. Kehoe SM
     8. Johannessen CM
     9. Macconaill LE
     10. Hahn WC
     11. Meyerson M
     12. Garraway LA

     (2011) Dissecting therapeutic resistance to RAF inhibition in melanoma by tumor genomic profiling

     Journal of Clinical Oncology 29:3085–3096.

     https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.33.2312

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
126. 1. Wagner J
     2. Rapsomaniki MA
     3. Chevrier S
     4. Anzeneder T
     5. Langwieder C
     6. Dykgers A
     7. Rees M
     8. Ramaswamy A
     9. Muenst S
     10. Soysal SD
     11. Jacobs A
     12. Windhager J
     13. Silina K
     14. van den Broek M
     15. Dedes KJ
     16. Rodríguez Martínez M
     17. Weber WP
     18. Bodenmiller B

     (2019) A Single-Cell atlas of the tumor and immune ecosystem of human breast Cancer

     Cell 177:1330–1345.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2019.03.005

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
127. 1. Wu M
     2. Pastor-Pareja JC
     3. Xu T

     (2010) Interaction between ras(V12) and scribbled clones induces tumour growth and invasion

     Nature 463:545–548.

     https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08702

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
128. 1. Xiong S
     2. Feng Y
     3. Cheng L

     (2019) Cellular reprogramming as a therapeutic target in Cancer

     Trends in Cell Biology 29:623–634.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2019.05.001

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
129. 1. Yonemitsu MA
     2. Giersch RM
     3. Polo-Prieto M
     4. Hammel M
     5. Simon A
     6. Cremonte F
     7. Avilés FT
     8. Merino-Véliz N
     9. Burioli EA
     10. Muttray AF
     11. Sherry J
     12. Reinisch C
     13. Baldwin SA
     14. Goff SP
     15. Houssin M
     16. Arriagada G
     17. Vázquez N
     18. Bierne N
     19. Metzger MJ

     (2019) A single clonal lineage of transmissible Cancer identified in two marine mussel species in South America and Europe

     eLife 8:e47788.

     https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.47788

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
130. 1. Yu M
     2. Bardia A
     3. Wittner BS
     4. Stott SL
     5. Smas ME
     6. Ting DT
     7. Isakoff SJ
     8. Ciciliano JC
     9. Wells MN
     10. Shah AM
     11. Concannon KF
     12. Donaldson MC
     13. Sequist LV
     14. Brachtel E
     15. Sgroi D
     16. Baselga J
     17. Ramaswamy S
     18. Toner M
     19. Haber DA
     20. Maheswaran S

     (2013) Circulating breast tumor cells exhibit dynamic changes in epithelial and mesenchymal composition

     Science 339:580–584.

     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1228522

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar
131. 1. Zhou H
     2. Neelakantan D
     3. Ford HL

     (2017) Clonal cooperativity in heterogenous cancers

     Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology 64:79–89.

     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2016.08.028

     • PubMed
     • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Jean-Pascal Capp

   Toulouse Biotechnology Institute, University of Toulouse, INSA, CNRS, INRAE, Toulouse, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   James DeGregori, Aurora M Nedelcu, Beata Ujvari, Andriy Marusyk, Robert Gatenby and Frédéric Thomas

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6470-079X

2. James DeGregori

   Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, United States

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Jean-Pascal Capp, Aurora M Nedelcu, Beata Ujvari, Andriy Marusyk, Robert Gatenby and Frédéric Thomas

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

3. Aurora M Nedelcu

   Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Contributed equally with

   Jean-Pascal Capp, James DeGregori, Beata Ujvari, Andriy Marusyk, Robert Gatenby and Frédéric Thomas

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7517-2419

4. Antoine M Dujon

   1. CREEC/CANECEV, MIVEGEC (CREES), University of Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, Montpellier, France
   2. Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

   Contribution

   Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

5. Justine Boutry

   CREEC/CANECEV, MIVEGEC (CREES), University of Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, Montpellier, France

   Contribution

   Writing - original draft

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

6. Pascal Pujol

   CREEC/CANECEV, MIVEGEC (CREES), University of Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, Montpellier, France

   Contribution

   Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

7. Catherine Alix-Panabières

   1. CREEC/CANECEV, MIVEGEC (CREES), University of Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, Montpellier, France
   2. Laboratory of Rare Human Circulating Cells (LCCRH), University Medical Centre of Montpellier, Montpellier, France

   Contribution

   Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6401-2903

8. Rodrigo Hamede

   School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

   Contribution

   Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

9. Benjamin Roche

   CREEC/CANECEV, MIVEGEC (CREES), University of Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, Montpellier, France

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

10. Beata Ujvari

    1. Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia
    2. School of Natural Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Jean-Pascal Capp, James DeGregori, Aurora M Nedelcu, Andriy Marusyk, Robert Gatenby and Frédéric Thomas

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2391-2988

11. Andriy Marusyk

    Department of Cancer Physiology, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Jean-Pascal Capp, James DeGregori, Aurora M Nedelcu, Beata Ujvari, Robert Gatenby and Frédéric Thomas

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

12. Robert Gatenby

    Department of Cancer Physiology, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, United States

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Jean-Pascal Capp, James DeGregori, Aurora M Nedelcu, Beata Ujvari, Andriy Marusyk and Frédéric Thomas

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1621-1510

13. Frédéric Thomas

    CREEC/CANECEV, MIVEGEC (CREES), University of Montpellier, CNRS, IRD, Montpellier, France

    Contribution

    Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - original draft, Writing - review and editing

    Contributed equally with

    Jean-Pascal Capp, James DeGregori, Aurora M Nedelcu, Beata Ujvari, Andriy Marusyk and Robert Gatenby

    For correspondence

    frederic.thomas2@ird.fr

    Competing interests

    No competing interests declared

    "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2238-1978

• 1,965

  views

• 245

  downloads

• 24

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.