PDA

View Full Version : Infectious Cancer Spreading in Soft-Shell Clams, Other Mollusks



EE_
11th July 2016, 03:56 PM
“Like the plot of a summer horror flick”: All along Canada’s Pacific coast, mussels are dying… Bodies are swollen by cancerous tumors — Unprecedented mutations allowing cancer to spread from one species to another like a virus — Scientists: “It’s beyond surprising” (VIDEO)

Published: July 7th, 2016 at 2:13 pm ET
By ENENews
Email Article Email Article
425 comments

Washington Post, Jun 22, 2016 (emphasis added): All along the western Canadian coast, mussels are dying. Their blobby bodies are swollen by tumors. The blood-like fluid that fills their interiors is clogged with malignant cells. They’re all sick with the same thing: cancer. And it seems to be spreading. For all its harrowing, terrifying damage, the saving grace of cancer has always been that it dies with its host. Its destructive power comes from turning victims’ own cells against them and making them run amok. But when molecular biologist Stephen Goff biopsied these mussels, he found something strange. The tumor cells didn’t have the same DNA as their host. Instead, every mussel was being killed by the same line of cancerous cells, which were jumping from one individual to the next like a virus…

National Geographic, Jun 23, 2016: It sounds like the plot of a summer horror flick: Malignant cells floating in the sea, ferrying infectious cancer everywhere they go. The story is all too true, say scientists who’ve made a discovery they call “beyond surprising.”… “The evidence indicates that the tumor cells themselves are contagious – that they can spread from one clam to another in the ocean,” says biochemist and immunologist Stephen Goff of Columbia University, co-author, along with Michael Metzger of Columbia, of a paper reporting the results in the journal Cell. These mussels are one of four species of mollusks affected. The mussels at Copper Beach in West Vancouver, Canada, are infected with the disease. This week the team reported new findings in the journal Nature. The transmissible cancer has been discovered in… mussels (Mytilus trossulus) in West Vancouver… Mytilus trossulus is the main native intertidal mussel in the northern Pacific. In North America, it’s found from California to Alaska… The cancer, it’s believed, originated in one unfortunate mollusk. It’s astounding, Goff says, that a leukemia that has killed countless clams traces to one incidence of the disease… What will happen in other mollusk species? Ominously, says Goff, “It’s too soon to know.”

University of British Columbia, Jun 23, 2016: 1st contagious cancer that spreads between species — UBC scientists were involved in research that found the first contagious cancer that can spread between species, CBC News reported. The leukemia-like disease seems to be widespread among shellfish with hinged shells, or bivalves, like clams, mussels and cockles. Environment Canada scientists worked with UBC researchers to collect mussels in West Vancouver and Esquimalt, B.C. and test them for cancer.

CBC News, Jun 22, 2016: Contagious cancers are a scary idea to begin with, but scientists have made some startling new discoveries about them – they are likely more common in nature than originally thought, and some can even spread between species… Mussels living off the coast of British Columbia [are] prone to the contagious cancer… scientists reported Wednesday in Nature… Canadian scientists collected mussels in West Vancouver, above, and Esquimalt, B.C. They then took them back to the lab and screened them for cancer… Sherry worked with Reinisch and scientists at the University of British Columbia to collect mussels in West Vancouver and Esquimalt, B.C. Then they took them back to the lab and screened them for cancer… Samples that tested positive for leukemia were sent to Goff and his postdoctoral researcher Michael Metzger, lead author of the new paper, for genetic analysis. That analysis showed that not all the mussels with leukemia had a contagious cancer – in some cases, the cancer had developed from an individual’s own cells, as is typically the case. But contagious cancers were found in all three species, and were typically clones from a single individual… Stephen Goff, a professor of microbiology at Columbia University who also co-authored the new paper, is interested in finding out what mutations allowed the transmissible cancer to spread to other individuals.

http://enenews.com/like-plot-summer-horror-flick-all-along-western-canadian-coast-mussels-dying-bodies-swollen-tumors-unprecedented-mutations-allowing-cancer-spread-one-species-another-like-virus-scientists-beyond

It’s Catching, If You’re a Clam: Infectious Cancer Spreading in Soft-Shell Clams, Other Mollusks
Posted by Cheryl Lyn Dybas in Ocean Views on June 23, 2016

Transmissible cancer is now found in four species of mollusks.
Scientists have discovered cancer that’s transmissible from mollusk-to-mollusk, including soft-shell clams. (Photograph: Michael Metzger)
It sounds like the plot of a summer horror flick: Malignant cells floating in the sea, ferrying infectious cancer everywhere they go.

The story is all too true, say scientists who’ve made a discovery they call “beyond surprising.”

Outbreaks of leukemia that have devastated populations of soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria) along the east coast of the U.S. and Canada are the result of cancerous tumor cells making their way from one clam to another.

“The evidence indicates that the tumor cells themselves are contagious – that they can spread from one clam to another in the ocean,” says biochemist and immunologist Stephen Goff of Columbia University, co-author, along with Michael Metzger of Columbia, of a paper reporting the results in the journal Cell.

These mussels are one of four species of mollusks affected.
The mussels at Copper Beach in West Vancouver, Canada, are infected with the disease. (Photograph: Annette Muttray)
This week the team reported new findings in the journal Nature. The transmissible cancer has been discovered in three more bivalve species – mussels (Mytilus trossulus) in West Vancouver, Canada; cockles (Cerastoderma edule) in Spain; and golden carpet shell clams (Polititapes aureus), also in Spain.

Mytilus trossulus is the main native intertidal mussel in the northern Pacific. In North America, it’s found from California to Alaska. Cerastoderma edule is widely distributed from Norway to the coast of West Africa; Polititapes aureus is common in the coastal waters of Spain and nearby nations.

The plot thickens: Soft-shell clams…and their relatives

A total of four mollusk species has been diagnosed with transmissible cancer.

A disease first found in soft-shell clams is now confirmed in mussels, cockles and gold carpet shell clams. (Photograph: Michael Metzger)

The range of the soft-shell (Mya arenaria) extends along the eastern North America coastline from Canada to the U.S. Southeast. The species is also found along the U.K. coast, as well as in the North Sea’s Wadden Sea, where it’s the dominant large clam.

Soft-shell clams – also called steamers, longnecks and Ipswich clams – are popular in seafood markets and on restaurant menus.

For those who favor clams on the half shell, the researchers believe that clam leukemia can’t be contracted by eating potentially infected clams, nor by swimming in the sea.

Mya arenaria’s shell is made of calcium carbonate and is thin and easily broken, hence the name soft-shell. The clam lives buried in tidal mudflats, some six to 10 inches under the surface. It extends its paired siphons up through the mud to filter seawater for food. Water often spurts from the siphons, a tip-off for clam diggers.

Cockles near Galicia, Spain, have the disease.
Cockles like these were collected near Galicia, Spain, and tested for the disease. (Photograph: David Iglesias)
Means and opportunity: The disease

Clam diggers likely won’t wipe out a mudflat’s soft-shells, but clam leukemia may. The cancer, it’s believed, originated in one unfortunate mollusk. It’s astounding, Goff says, that a leukemia that has killed countless clams traces to one incidence of the disease.

As the cancer cells divide, break free, and make their way into other clams, leukemia has infected soft-shells along more than 600 miles of coastline. It’s now found from northern Newfoundland to Chesapeake Bay, nearly the soft-shell’s entire range. “The prospects for disease control therefore aren’t very promising,” says Goff.

Only two other transmissible cancers are known in the wild: Canine venereal disease in dogs and Tasmanian devil facial tumor disease, spread when one Tasmanian devil bites another.

Will soft-shell clams and related mollusks go the way of Tasmania’s devils, now listed as Endangered on the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Red List of Threatened Species? No one knows.

Golden carpet shell clams near Galicia, Spain
Along with cockles, golden carpet shell clams near Galicia, Spain, have leukemia. (Photograph: David Iglesias)
On-the-loose: From New York to Maine to Prince Edward Island

In their studies of clam cancer, Goff and colleagues found that a particular sequence of DNA, which they appropriately named Steamer, was found at high levels in leukemia-ridden clam cells. While normal soft-shell cells contain only two to five copies of Steamer, cancer cells may have 150 copies.

The researchers at first thought this difference was the result of a genetic amplification process within each individual clam. But when Metzger analyzed the genomes of cancer cells from soft-shells collected in Port Jefferson, New York; St. George, Maine; Larrabee Cove, Maine; and Dunk Estuary, Prince Edward Island, he was astounded. The cancer cells were identical to one another at the genetic level. “They were clones,” says Metzger.

Adds Goff, “We were astonished to realize that the tumors did not arise from the cells of their diseased host animals, but rather from a rogue clonal cell line that had spread over large geographic distances.”

The cells can survive in seawater long enough to reach and infect a new host, the scientists found. They aren’t sure, however, how many mollusk species ultimately might be able to contract the leukemia. But the new findings suggest that transmissible cancers are more common than researchers suspected.

Mussels in West Vancouver, Canada, tested positive for the mollusk leukemia.
Mussels from Copper Beach in West Vancouver, Canada – potentially diseased – on ice. (Photograph: Michael Metzger)
Where’s the trigger?

Biologist Anne Bottger of West Chester University in Pennsylvania believes environmental contaminants may be the sparks that set off mollusk leukemia. She and colleagues studied soft-shell clams in three coastal New England locales: New Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts; Hampton Harbor, New Hampshire; and Ogunquit, Maine.

“Frequencies of terminal clam neoplasia are correlated with chronic environmental contamination,” Bottger and colleagues reported in a 2013 paper in the journal Northeastern Naturalist. “That’s likely involved in disease transmission by compromising their [the clams’] innate immune systems and making them more susceptible to infectious agents.”

Bottger found the most clam leukemia in New Bedford Harbor. Of the three research sites, New Bedford Harbor had the highest levels of contaminants, including PCBs.

Once leukemia is established in a soft-shell population, Bottger discovered, it kills 40 to 100 percent of the clams.

What will happen in other mollusk species? Ominously, says Goff, “It’s too soon to know.”

For now, the best he or anyone can offer is: Stay tuned for the sequel…

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/23/its-catching-if-youre-a-clam-infectious-cancer-spreading-in-soft-shell-clams-other-mollusks/

osoab
11th July 2016, 06:26 PM
When is the pink clam rally?

7th trump
11th July 2016, 06:38 PM
Theres a reason why the Creator tells us not to eat shell fish. They are unclean for you to eat. They cause the body to have diseases and certain functions to cease or go wrong.
Pork is a good one not to eat. It causes problems.

collector
11th July 2016, 06:58 PM
When is the pink clam rally?

Right after the bearded clam rally gets pushed aside ;)

singular_me
12th July 2016, 09:58 AM
because you think that eating meat that is 7-10 days old is better?

the best is to kill the animal and eat it within 24H... but from slaughter houses to a home fridge, there often is 1 week delay if not more. The meat industry itself is such a scam!! The beef that is 1 week old isnt red anymore but thanks to the dyes.

scavengers?



Theres a reason why the Creator tells us not to eat shell fish. They are unclean for you to eat. They cause the body to have diseases and certain functions to cease or go wrong.
Pork is a good one not to eat. It causes problems.

7th trump
12th July 2016, 10:05 AM
because you think that eating meat that is 7-10 days old is better?

the best is to kill the animal and eat it within 24H... but from slaughter houses to a home fridge, there often is 1 week delay if not more. The meat industry itself is such a scam!! The beef that is 1 week old isnt red anymore but thanks to the dyes.

scavengers?

No...because the animal is a garbage eater. Shrimp are nothing but the oceans cockroach's....would you eat a cockroach?
All shell fish are either bottom feeders or filterers.
Pork, a bottom feeder doesn't sweat and most of the toxins from what it eats is stored in its fat. You eat it you eat the toxin waste. Your body cannot process toxins and break down the bodies ability to be healthy.

Beef has a second stomach where basically it ferments the grain or grass destroying the toxins in the process.
Fish with scales are not bottom feeders..the meat is clean.

Joshua01
12th July 2016, 10:11 AM
because you think that eating meat that is 7-10 days old is better?

the best is to kill the animal and eat it within 24H... but from slaughter houses to a home fridge, there often is 1 week delay if not more. The meat industry itself is such a scam!! The beef that is 1 week old isnt red anymore but thanks to the dyes.

scavengers?

In a past life I was a meat cutter (for 26 years). I did wholesale and retail and that was back in the days of working with hanging beef. I will take the liberty of saying I know more about meat than most people do. You're wrong on so many levels. You need to do some research before I'll even entertain discussing this with you

singular_me
12th July 2016, 10:31 AM
In a past life I was a meat cutter (for 26 years). I did wholesale and retail and that was back in the days of working with hanging beef. I will take the liberty of saying I know more about meat than most people do. You're wrong on so many levels. You need to do some research before I'll even entertain discussing this with you

I am looking at the whole situation, not a few different cases. Meat is bad for humans because they have a long intestine (carnivores have a short one) to start with. And this means that meat will rot inside, and it is worst when cooked.

you may have a different experience handling meat but the industry knows how to keep the meat red. I am not making anything up.


Why Supermarket Meat is Always (Unnaturally) Red
Once meat becomes exposed to air, oxidation begins which gradually turns the red color of the meat to a more unappetizing brown or grey color within just a few days.
Carbon Monoxide Keeps Supermarket Meat Red Even if It’s Spoiled
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/why-supermarket-meat-is-always-unnaturally-red/

Joshua01
12th July 2016, 10:48 AM
Why Supermarket Meat is Always (Unnaturally) Red
Once meat becomes exposed to air, oxidation begins which gradually turns the red color of the meat to a more unappetizing brown or grey color within just a few days.
Carbon Monoxide Keeps Supermarket Meat Red Even if It’s Spoiled
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/why-supermarket-meat-is-always-unnaturally-red/
Now see? this right here is simply wrong. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that once you slice a piece of beef and expose the beef to the air the hemoglobin in the animal's blood reacts to oxygen and turns red. The color of blood is actually more of a deep purple. What makes it look red is the reaction in the hemoglobin to oxygen, as I described. While primals (un-sliced meat, whole side, hanging beef) will remain fresh for 7-10 days in refrigeration, older sliced meat, for example a porterhouse steak, turns grey over time 2-4 days, even under refrigeration. There's no magic spray bottle of carbon monoxide the supermarkets spray on every steak to keep it red for a week. You're simply misinformed. (Hint: don't believe everything you read on the Interwebs)

singular_me
12th July 2016, 10:57 AM
thanks for your 2 cents, which I will keep in the back of my mind. I appreciate. But I do recall however, that 25 years ago when going to my local butcher, meat had a red/brown color. In the supermarket it is always flashy red, especially these days

but the basis of my argument is that eating meat is "scavenging" these days because meat isnt eaten right away, which makes it worst for humans who have a long intestine.




Now see? this right here is simply wrong. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that once you slice a piece of beef and expose the beef to the air the hemoglobin in the animal's blood reacts to oxygen and turns red. The color of blood is actually more of a deep purple. What makes it look red is the reaction in the hemoglobin to oxygen, as I described. While primals (un-sliced meat, whole side, hanging beef) will remain fresh for 7-10 days in refrigeration, older sliced meat, for example a porterhouse steak, turns grey over time 2-4 days, even under refrigeration. There's no magic spray bottle of carbon monoxide the supermarkets spray on every steak to keep it red for a week. You're simply misinformed. (Hint: don't believe everything you read on the Interwebs)

singular_me
12th July 2016, 11:09 AM
clean??? something to chew on:

Red meat is linked to cancer because of a sugar molecule called Neu5Gc
Neu5Gc is not found in humans and so our immune system attacks it
This leads to inflammation which over time promotes tumours forming
Chicken and fish (which are not linked with cancer) don't contain Neu5Gc

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2890243/Scientists-crack-red-meat-linked-cancer-SUGAR-molecule-blame.html#ixzz4EDd42DLH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




No...because the animal is a garbage eater. Shrimp are nothing but the oceans cockroach's....would you eat a cockroach?
All shell fish are either bottom feeders or filterers.
Pork, a bottom feeder doesn't sweat and most of the toxins from what it eats is stored in its fat. You eat it you eat the toxin waste. Your body cannot process toxins and break down the bodies ability to be healthy.

Beef has a second stomach where basically it ferments the grain or grass destroying the toxins in the process.
Fish with scales are not bottom feeders..the meat is clean.

Cebu_4_2
12th July 2016, 11:37 AM
Now see? this right here is simply wrong. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that once you slice a piece of beef and expose the beef to the air the hemoglobin in the animal's blood reacts to oxygen and turns red. The color of blood is actually more of a deep purple. What makes it look red is the reaction in the hemoglobin to oxygen, as I described. While primals (un-sliced meat, whole side, hanging beef) will remain fresh for 7-10 days in refrigeration, older sliced meat, for example a porterhouse steak, turns grey over time 2-4 days, even under refrigeration. There's no magic spray bottle of carbon monoxide the supermarkets spray on every steak to keep it red for a week. You're simply misinformed. (Hint: don't believe everything you read on the Interwebs)


In the mid 2000s I remember the Ag dept allowing carbon monoxide to be used to keep old meat looking fresh. I also have seen those sealed pressurized packages and the meat looks un-naturally red. It's just what I remember though.

7th trump
12th July 2016, 12:06 PM
Now see? this right here is simply wrong. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that once you slice a piece of beef and expose the beef to the air the hemoglobin in the animal's blood reacts to oxygen and turns red. The color of blood is actually more of a deep purple. What makes it look red is the reaction in the hemoglobin to oxygen, as I described. While primals (un-sliced meat, whole side, hanging beef) will remain fresh for 7-10 days in refrigeration, older sliced meat, for example a porterhouse steak, turns grey over time 2-4 days, even under refrigeration. There's no magic spray bottle of carbon monoxide the supermarkets spray on every steak to keep it red for a week. You're simply misinformed. (Hint: don't believe everything you read on the Interwebs)

Why would anyone believe your bullshit when they can read about?


1. What factors affect the color of meat and poultry?
Myoglobin, a protein, is responsible for the majority of the red color. Myoglobin doesn't circulate in the blood but is fixed in the tissue cells and is purplish in color. When it is mixed with oxygen, it becomes oxymyoglobin and produces a bright red color. The remaining color comes from the hemoglobin which occurs mainly in the circulating blood, but a small amount can be found in the tissues after slaughter.

Color is also influenced by the age of the animal, the species, sex, diet, and even the exercise it gets. The meat from older animals will be darker in color because the myoglobin level increases with age. Exercised muscles are always darker in color, which means the same animal can have variations of color in its muscles.

In addition, the color of meat and poultry can change as it is being stored at retail and in the home (see explanation in question 5). When safely stored in the refrigerator or freezer, color changes are normal for fresh meat and poultry.

http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/meat-preparation/the-color-of-meat-and-poultry/the-color-of-meat-and-poultry/ct_index

The blood is not blue...its red. Whats blue is the tissue but turns red once it mix's with oxygen. Hemoglobin is in the blood and its what is red...so yes the blood is red the veins are blueish until exposed to oxygen.

You're just another conspiracy asshole on this site are you....yes of course you are.
Now you can commence with the flames because I set you straight.

7th trump
12th July 2016, 12:07 PM
clean??? something to chew on:

Red meat is linked to cancer because of a sugar molecule called Neu5Gc
Neu5Gc is not found in humans and so our immune system attacks it
This leads to inflammation which over time promotes tumours forming
Chicken and fish (which are not linked with cancer) don't contain Neu5Gc

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2890243/Scientists-crack-red-meat-linked-cancer-SUGAR-molecule-blame.html#ixzz4EDd42DLH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I could give a shit less. Beef is clean to eat!

Joshua01
12th July 2016, 12:50 PM
Why would anyone believe your bullshit when they can read about?




I always trust the voice of experience before anything I can copy and paste from the Interwebs.

Cebu_4_2
12th July 2016, 05:16 PM
I always trust the voice of experience before anything I can copy and paste from the Interwebs.

I see my BS got lost in translation...


In the mid 2000s I remember the Ag dept allowing carbon monoxide to be used to keep old meat looking fresh. I also have seen those sealed pressurized packages and the meat looks un-naturally red. It's just what I remember though.

7th trump
12th July 2016, 05:17 PM
I always trust the voice of experience before anything I can copy and paste from the Interwebs.

Sure ...ok!
A butcher knows more than any trained medical doctor or scientist in the field.
Look at the little buddy go o)(~

Some day you'll get it right..someday maybe!

Cebu_4_2
12th July 2016, 05:58 PM
Someday we should get a no thanks option.

osoab
12th July 2016, 06:06 PM
clean??? something to chew on:

Red meat is linked to cancer because of a sugar molecule called Neu5Gc
Neu5Gc is not found in humans and so our immune system attacks it
This leads to inflammation which over time promotes tumours forming
Chicken and fish (which are not linked with cancer) don't contain Neu5Gc

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2890243/Scientists-crack-red-meat-linked-cancer-SUGAR-molecule-blame.html#ixzz4EDd42DLH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Bullshit. Cancer was introduced into the population.

Neuro
12th July 2016, 06:24 PM
In the mid 2000s I remember the Ag dept allowing carbon monoxide to be used to keep old meat looking fresh. I also have seen those sealed pressurized packages and the meat looks un-naturally red. It's just what I remember though.

Carbon dioxide is used to keep it fresh for longer, most bacteria are dependent on oxygen to thrive, keeping it in carbon dioxide, or any other environment which is not oxygen prevent the growth of bacteria, and thus prevents it from going bad.

Half Sense
12th July 2016, 06:41 PM
When I worked at Victoria Station (steak and prime rib restaurant where you dined in old English boxcars and cabooses) there was a large case of raw aging beef on display in the lounge area. I had to rotate it constantly; it was aged 6-8 weeks after we got it from Nebraska.

Joshua01
13th July 2016, 05:27 AM
When I worked at Victoria Station (steak and prime rib restaurant where you dined in old English boxcars and cabooses) there was a large case of raw aging beef on display in the lounge area. I had to rotate it constantly; it was aged 6-8 weeks after we got it from Nebraska.

I didn't even want to go into aging beef. I was stooping pretty low intellectually just making my point and simply could keep my brain operating at that low a threshold for much longer. Some people are simply smarter than the rest of us....ask them, they'll tell ya!

singular_me
13th July 2016, 07:08 AM
yes I agree that they have made it skyrocket, but cancer was nonetheless existing, it was just called by another name, or didnt have any name for it.

but still, there is a reason why carnivores have a short intestine. Man is not suited to eat 1lb meat daily, 365 days/year. There is a meat agenda to kill you out there.

this is the logical argument for vegetarianism. if you eat eggs, you do not really need meat.



Bullshit. Cancer was introduced into the population.

Neuro
13th July 2016, 07:49 AM
Meat tastes damn good, that's why even vegan buy and eat products, that are made to look feel and taste like meat, artificially!

osoab
18th August 2016, 06:12 PM
In a past life I was a meat cutter (for 26 years). I did wholesale and retail and that was back in the days of working with hanging beef. I will take the liberty of saying I know more about meat than most people do. You're wrong on so many levels. You need to do some research before I'll even entertain discussing this with you

Yes, but did you teach them how to marinate the meat?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H96XcNWKZVg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H96XcNWKZVg

Nomoss
18th August 2016, 07:59 PM
Thanks that was good.
Most think they know but don't.
as my signature said you don't know.