Preprint Review Version 2 Preserved in Portico This version is not peer-reviewed

Biochemistry, Not Oncogenes, may Demystify and Defeat Cancer

Version 1 : Received: 19 April 2021 / Approved: 22 April 2021 / Online: 22 April 2021 (09:37:10 CEST)
Version 2 : Received: 4 July 2021 / Approved: 6 July 2021 / Online: 6 July 2021 (11:32:47 CEST)

How to cite: Kulsh, J. Biochemistry, Not Oncogenes, may Demystify and Defeat Cancer. Preprints 2021, 2021040602 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202104.0602.v2). Kulsh, J. Biochemistry, Not Oncogenes, may Demystify and Defeat Cancer. Preprints 2021, 2021040602 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202104.0602.v2).

Abstract

Presence of mutated genes strongly correlates with incidence of cancer. Decades of research, however, has not yielded any specific causative gene or set of genes for the vast majority of cancers. The Cancer Genome Atlas program was supposed to provide clarity but it only gave much more data without any accompanying insight into how the disease begins and progresses. It may be time to notice that epidemiological studies consistently show that the environment, not genes, has the principal role in causing cancer. Since carcinogenic chemicals in our food, drink, air and water are the primary culprit, we need to look at the biochemistry of cancer, with focus on enzymes which carry out any and all transformations in a cell. In particular, attention should be paid to the rate-limiting enzyme in DNA synthesis, ribonucleotide reductase (RnR) which is tightly linked to tumor growth. Beside the circumstantial evidence that cancer is induced at its vulnerable active-site by various carcinogens, there exists experimental proof of its role in initiating retinoblastoma and HPV-related cervical cancers. Blocking the activity of RnR is a certain way to arrest cancer.

Keywords

cancer; DNA sequencing; DNA synthesis; enzyme; free-radicals; genome; HPV; oncogenes; retinoblastoma; ribonucleotide reductase; RnR; SMT; TCGA

Comments (1)

Comment 1
Received: 6 July 2021
Commenter: Jay Kulsh
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: Author
Comment: The changes are mainly made in sections 2.3 and 2.3.1 (beside some very minor spelling and formatting corrections elsewhere), With the help of 6 more references, language of those two sections is made more forceful. Also, one reference each has been added to sections 3 and 3.3, without changing the text.
+ Respond to this comment

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 1
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here.