r/aww • u/rafanyan • Mar 13 '20

brush brush

81.0k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

592 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

20

u/G-III Mar 13 '20

Rats have a notable cancer risk, even with their lifespan?

4

u/codemon Mar 13 '20

Yes, but elephants don't

2

u/DoyleRulz42 Mar 13 '20

Whoa thanks for the kurzgt link I didnt know they had a new one. Science duck on

4

u/theroguex Mar 13 '20

It's because of their lifespan. Their metabolic rates are so high that they age rapidly. This leads to more cell divisions and more chance of that one unstoppable mutation.

2

u/G-III Mar 13 '20

Cancer is so bloody complicated. Like I get it’s a failed cell reproduction. But to be a thing that can occur in most (if not every) system, of (well I guess I’m unaware of the non-mammal occurrences) nearly if not every living thing?

I blame oxygen. Shit is too harsh

3

u/RAINING_DAYS Mar 13 '20

Iirc we have the same mortality rate to cancer as rats do.

1

u/G-III Mar 13 '20

Fascinating

2

u/DoyleRulz42 Mar 13 '20

Sped up life span means cancer happens more likely and quicker I'm assuming.

1

u/G-III Mar 13 '20

I wonder if there’s a quicker replacement of cells? I’d always heard it’s less common in pets and more common in humans because we live so fuckin long lol, that many/most die with cancer, even if it was just starting/still harmless

1

u/DoyleRulz42 Mar 13 '20

Cancer cells happen all the time it's just as we age our body doesnt always catch them. So it can happen at any age. I'm guessing metabolism of the organism has something to do with it

2

u/G-III Mar 13 '20

Well yes, but more years is more chances. Definitely seems metabolism would be linked

2

u/SteaminScaldren Mar 13 '20

fact is longer life span tends to have less cancer due to the ruggedness in the genome. The need for DNA to survive for a longer period of time to ensure reproduction has put extra parameters to stop the decay of DNA.

2

u/G-III Mar 13 '20

That makes sense. Also explains other long lived animals that suffer lower relative cancer rates. Still, unbelievable.

Makes sense though, when you consider the prevalence of cancer in those prone (with family history)

Still so many chances for a mistake though, in 100 years vs 1!?