cells Opinion Stemming Tumoral Growth: A Matter of Grotesque Organogenesis Marisa M. Merino 1, *,† and Jose A. Garcia-Sanz 2, *,† 1 2 * † Department of Biochemistry, Faculty of Sciences, University of Geneva, 1205 Geneva, Switzerland Department of Molecular Biomedicine, Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas Margarita Salas, Spanish National Research Council (CIB-CSIC), 28040 Madrid, Spain Correspondence: [email protected] (M.M.M.); [email protected] (J.A.G.-S.) Both authors contributed equally to this work and should be considered Senior co-authors. Abstract: The earliest metazoans probably evolved from single-celled organisms which found the colonial system to be a beneficial organization. Over the course of their evolution, these primary colonial organisms increased in size, and division of labour among the cells became a remarkable feature, leading to a higher level of organization: the biological organs. Primitive metazoans were the first organisms in evolution to show organ-type structures, which set the grounds for complex organs to evolve. Throughout evolution, and concomitant with organogenesis, is the appearance of tissuespecific stem cells. Tissue-specific stem cells gave rise to multicellular living systems with distinct organs which perform specific physiological functions. This setting is a constructive role of evolution; however, rebel cells can take over the molecular mechanisms for other purposes: nowadays we know that cancer stem cells, which generate aberrant organ-like structures, are at the top of a hierarchy. Furthermore, cancer stem cells are the root of metastasis, therapy resistance, and relapse. At present, most therapeutic drugs are unable to target cancer stem cells and therefore, treatment becomes a challenging issue. We expect that future research will uncover the mechanistic “forces” driving organ growth, paving the way to the implementation of new strategies to impair human tumorigenesis. Keywords: organogenesis; tumorigenesis; stem cells; cancer stem cells; cell competition; scaling; size; growth Citation: Merino, M.M.; Garcia-Sanz, J.A. Stemming Tumoral Growth: A Matter of Grotesque Organogenesis. Cells 2023, 12, 872. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/cells12060872 Academic Editor: Fabrizio Marcucci Received: 17 February 2023 Revised: 7 March 2023 Accepted: 9 March 2023 Published: 11 March 2023 Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 1. Early Metazoans and Division of Labour The emergence of metazoan life can be traced back to 700–800 million years ago [1]. Primitive metazoans probably evolved from single-celled organisms which found the colonial system to be a beneficial organization [2–6]. Over the course of evolution, these primary colonial organisms increased in size, and division of labour among the cells became a remarkable feature [7]. Cells within the colony specialized for different functions in order to obtain the required resources, perhaps while reducing conflicts among the members of the colony [8]. This evolutionary process led to a higher level of biological organization, which in current complex organisms has developed into anatomical units, with specialized cells that form the biological organs, which perform specific functions [2–6]. Porifera (commonly referred to as sponges) are thought to be the most ancient, extant metazoans on earth, and therefore provide insights into the earliest processes in metazoan evolution [2,9]. These living fossils already carry some signalling pathways, including Wnt, TGF-Beta, and Hedgehog [10], which are conserved across metazoan life. The sponge’s anatomy is formed by two distinct epithelial cell layers, with a few cell types showing different degrees of motility [11]. Indeed, sponges were the first organisms in evolution to show organ-type structures. Sponge epithelia are polarised, sealing and controlling the passage of solutes and therefore their internal milieu. This proto-skin might be evolutionary the origin of the first biological organ in the known life, allowing biochemical communication among cells and probably setting the grounds for complex organs to evolve [12]. 4.0/). Cells 2023, 12, 872. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12060872 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/cells Cells 2023, 12, 872 2 of 12 2. The Emergence of Tissue-Specific Stem Cells Throughout evolution, and concomitant with organogenesis, is the appearance of tissue-specific stem cells in the animal and plant kingdoms [13]. Stem cells sustain cell renewal, replace and regenerate damaged tissues, maintaining organ function and homeostasis [14–16]. Historically, the term “stem cell” was coined by the German physician and zoologist Ernest Haeckel (1834–1919). While recording his findings, he extraordinarily blended science and art by hand-drawing the organisms he observed, from mountaintops to oceans [17]. Curiously, Haeckel introduced the term with an evolutionary connotation. As a supporter of Darwin’s theory of evolution, he described phylogenetic trees, which he called “stem trees”, as representing the evolution of organisms from common ancestors. In this context, he used the term “stem cell” to refer to the unicellular ancestor of all multicellular organisms, as well as the fertilized egg, which gives rise to all cell types in living organisms [18]. Despite this early usage of the term, it was not until the 1960s that the Canadian scientists Ernest A. McCulloch and James E. Till characterized what we now refer as a stem cells, and developed an assay to analyse the potential of early blood-forming progenitor cells from bone marrow to self-renew and differentiate into several blood cell types (Figure 1). These pioneering studies described the hallmark properties of stem cells, characterized by the ability to self-renew and differentiate in a hierarchical organization [19–21]. Going back to the primitive metazoan organisms, sponge stem cells already carry out roles in cellular specialization and renewal, which might explain the powerful regeneration capacity of these living systems [22,23]. In the case of higher organisms, stem cell potency is reduced over time during specialization [15]. Organ formation in the embryos of these organisms requires the presence of tissue-specific stem cells, which later give rise to the organ-specific Figure 1[15,24]. In the adult stages, organ M.Merino & Garcia-Sanz cell hierarchy driven by growth and patterning signals architecture and functionality are maintained by somatic stem cells, which are found in low frequencies in most adult tissues [25–31]. Growth Regulators Cancer & Size Control Microbiome & Cancer Cancer & Cell Competition Cancer Stem Cells 2001 Cancer Hallmarks 2000 Proto-oncogenes 1980s Chemicals Others Genetics Cancer Roots Environment Figure 1. Cancer roots and growth regulators. Tree chart depicting known origins of cancer (brown), timeline of key discoveries in cancer research (green), and growth regulators during tumoral growth (blue). Cells 2023, 12, 872 3 of 12 Thus, evolution gave rise to multicellular living systems formed by distinct anatomical structures (i.e., organs) which perform one or more physiological functions. This anatomical organization is the result of a cellular hierarchy established during development, which maintains required features through adulthood. As a result of this hierarchy, organ systems communicate and work together to generate successful living individuals. This setting seems to be a constructive role of evolution; however, what happens when rebel cells against the current regulation came up into this setting? 3. Tumoral Growth: From Proto-Oncogenes and Hallmarks of Cancer, to the Cancer Stem Cell Hypothesis In certain diseases, whether they occur during development or adulthood, cells within tissues can take over the existing molecular mechanisms for other purposes. One of these examples is tumorigenesis. Initial studies in the cancer field showed the role of proto-oncogenes and oncogenes in tumoral growth [32,33]. Later, in 2OOO, the hallmarks of cancer were discussed by Hanahan and Weinberg, suggesting that most cancers acquire a similar set of functional capabilities, although by using different molecular mechanisms [34]. These capabilities include, amongst others, (i) limitless replicative potential; (ii) self-sufficiency in growth signals; (iii) tissue invasion and metastasis; and (iv) evasion of apoptosis [34,35]. In an attempt to reconcile all of these facts, a new hypothesis explaining the bases of tumoral growth was subsequently formulated [36]. The cancer stem cell hypothesis suggested that within the tumour, there is a small subpopulation of cells with stem cell properties, which drive tumoral growth [36]. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) were initially described in leukaemia, and afterwards in solid tumoral tissues, including mammary gland and brain tumours [37–39]. Despite the initial controversies on the existence of CSCs, the presence of CSCs was later demonstrated in in vivo studies [40], which identified CSCs in adenomas, melanomas, gliomas and mammary gland tumours [41–44] (Figure 1). 4. Tumours as Caricatures of Dysfunctional Organs Nowadays, it is established that CSCs are at the top of a hierarchy. These cells divide either symmetrically, amplifying the CSC population, or asymmetrically, generating transient amplifying cells with high proliferative potential and giving rise to more differentiated cell populations and tumoral heterogeneity. In addition, CSCs are the root of metastasis generation, therapy resistance, and relapse [45–48]. Indeed, some aspects of tumour development greatly resemble the processes of organ development. CSCs can control tumoral growth and also have differentiation capacity, generating aberrant organ-like structures which show reminiscent patterning from the original organs. However, this tumoral patterning is mostly observed in early cancer stages. Over time and contrary to wild-type organ development, cells within the tumour acquire fewer differentiated traits, somehow showing a process of organ devolution [48,49]. It is worth mentioning that tumours within a living individual perform different functions and communicate with other organs [49], though most of these functions are likely not well aligned with the other organ systems in terms of organismal survival [49]. Tumour-to-organ communication triggers several systemic responses, including: suppression of the immune system, coagulation abnormalities, and changes in metabolism. One striking effect of tumour-to-organ communication is cachexia, a wasting disorder which causes severe weight loss and fatigue [50,51]. Cachexia directly causes up to 30% of cancer deaths and is induced by factors secreted by the growing tumours [49]. Therefore, these systemic tumoral effects are the cause of a high percentage of cancer deaths, rather than the primary tumoral growth or metastasis itself [49]. 5. Cell Competition in Primary and Secondary Cancer Growth Several studies confirm that tumours can develop from single clones which acquire a set of mutations driving overgrowth [52,53]. These mutations are of diverse origins: they can be inherited in the autosomal or mitochondrial DNA, induced by chemical carcinogens or environmental factors, or modulated by the individual’s microbiome [54–61] (Figure 1). Cells 2023, 12, 872 4 of 12 Tumours, while growing, increase by volume and thus the contact area with the wild-type host tissues also increases. At this tumour–wild-type interface, tumoral cells battle against host cells in order to make “territorial gains”. During this battle, host cells are usually eliminated from the tissue undergoing apoptosis, and the speed at which the host cells are eliminated correlates with the tumoral growth rate [41,62–68]. This phenomenology of cell competition was initially found in Drosophila growing tissue when analysing ribosomal mutations (i.e., Minute) using genetic mosaics [49]. The so-called unfit cells were eliminated from the growing organ in the presence of the so-called fit cells [69,70]. Currently, we know that cell competition principles are conserved from Drosophila to humans, playing multiple physiological roles during development, adulthood, disease, and ageing [41,62–65,71–86]. In the literature, a great number of studies show that the bases of these competitive behaviours are of different natures [14,41,62,63,69,71–73,77,81,87–89]. Cells can battle for growth factors and also space; furthermore, signalling levels and growth rates seem to play a big role in the game [62,65,69,77,81,87,88,90–99]. For instance, during organ growth in Drosophila, and in vertebrates, cells with “wrong” morphogen signalling levels are eliminated from the growing field in order to maintain wild-type size or pattern [87,88,99]. Primary tumoral growth happens within the original tissue/organ where it was initiated. However, these primary tumoral cells can acquire migratory capabilities in order to conquer overseas territory. During the metastatic cascade, cancer cells leave the primary tumour, travel through the bloodstream or lymphatic system, and reach distant organs, then develop secondary tumoral outgrowth or metastasis [100,101]. Remarkably, tumoral cells do not metastasize in a random manner. Cancer metastases are selectively distributed depending on the cancer type and subtype. Some examples of organ-specific metastasis include the preference of pancreatic and uveal cancers to form metastasis to the liver, while prostate cancer often metastasizes to bone [100,102–104]. It is shown that some tumours over-express chemokine receptors, which are functional and therefore trigger the migration of tumour cells towards the sites where the ligands for the particular receptor expressed in the tumour cells are synthesized [105]. For instance, tumours expressing the chemokine receptor CCR9 tend to generate metastasis on the small intestine [105–112]. However, the mechanisms that cancer cells exploit in order to cause secondary overgrowths in targeted organs are largely unknown, and it is still a major open question in the field [49,100]. A plausible hypothesis is that during the metastatic process, migrating cancer cells, which carry reminiscent signalling profiles from their original organs, must find a field that is compatible with their own signalling profile in order to grow. Otherwise, cancer cells within an incompatible field will be outcompeted and eliminated, a process which we might call “metastatic competition” (Figure 2A,B). Perhaps, this kind of competition could also engage spatial constraints from the target field. Actually, this hypothesis is consistent with the “seed and soil theory” proposed by Stephen Paget in 1889. Paget compared the migrating cancer cells to seeds which are randomly distributed, but will grow solely in congenial soil [100,113,114]. Cells 2023, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Cells 2023, 12, 872 6 of 14 5 of 12 Figure 2.2.Metastatic MetastaticCompetition Competitionhypothesis hypothesisand andtumoral tumoral growth. (A). Metastatic cells with difFigure growth. (A). Metastatic cells with differferent signalling profiles ( ) than the signalling profiles from the target organs (organ ) might ent signalling profiles (≁) than the signalling profiles from the target organs (organi) mighti be outbe outcompeted and eliminated the field, tumoral thus abolishing growths. (B). competed and eliminated from thefrom tumoral thusfield, abolishing metastatic metastatic growths. (B). Metastatic Metastatic cells with similar profiles signalling to the signalling profiles target(organ organs j) cells with similar signalling (~)profiles to the (~) signalling profiles from the from targetthe organs might be eliminated from thefrom organ allowing them to proliferate and form (organnot not be eliminated themicroenvironment, organ microenvironment, allowing them to proliferate and j ) might metastatic overgrowths. (C). Signalling profiles and cells fromfrom organ i and organ j are depicted in difform metastatic overgrowths. (C). Signalling profiles and cells organ i and organj are depicted in ferent colours; t refers to time. different colours; t refers to time. 6. Scaling Scaling Phenomena Phenomena during during Development, Development, Adulthood, Adulthood, and and Tumorigenesis Tumorigenesis 6. strikinghow howdeveloping developing systems remain proportional while growing. the ItItisisstriking systems remain proportional while growing. In theIncase case of human development, the size of our hands scales with the size of our growing of human development, the size of our hands scales with the size of our growing body. body. These proportionalities already discussed ago;however, however,the the scaling scaling These proportionalities were were already discussed longlong ago; Cells 2023, 12, 872 6 of 12 mechanisms were not known [115]. Indeed, during organ growth, these proportionalities can be controlled by morphogen gradients. Drosophila research has largely contributed to our understanding of the molecular mechanisms regulating scaling in organ growth. For instance, in the developing Drosophila wing, the Decapentaplegic (Dpp) morphogen regulates growth and patterning phenomena [116–123]. Dpp spreads from a source, located at the centre of the tissue, and forms a concentration gradient into the target cells, which can be measured by its particular decay length (λ) [116,120,124]. It has been shown that during wing growth, the λ of the Dpp gradient correlates with the size of the tissue. That is, the Dpp gradient scales with tissue size [116,120]. To fulfil this job, there is a mechanism which tunes the λ during organ growth, keeping the gradient and tissue proportional [87,88,116,125–127]. In this particular organ (i.e., wing), Dpp signalling scaling failure leads to defects in tissue size and pattern formation [87,88,116,126,128,129]. It is noteworthy that organ scaling happens not only in developing systems, but also during adulthood. A peculiar scenario is the case of regenerative growth, by which organisms replace or restore tissues and organs. This mechanism ensures that the final size of the regenerating tissue or organ remains proportional with morphological patterns of the adult individual [130,131]. However, throughout evolution, there is loss of regenerative growth [132]. A second example of this is organ scaling in human adulthood. Several reports show that organ weight can correlate with total body weight, additionally showing different means of organ weight between females and males [24,133,134], most probably due to modulation of the total number of cells per organ, although, the mechanistic bases of these proportionalities remain unknown. Analogously, the size differences observed between female and male organs can also be found in tumoral growth. Interestingly, studies describe that tumour sizes can differ significantly between females and males, exhibiting bigger tumour sizes in males than females [135–137]. This fact does not appear to be trivial, and at the moment we might not have a biological explanation for this phenomenon. 7. Concluding Remarks and Future Views A widespread feature among different cancer types is the association of tumour size with patient outcomes [138–140]. Generally, bigger tumour sizes correlate with worse outcomes [138–140]. At present, most clinically used therapeutic drugs target cancer cells with high proliferation rates; however, CSCs show SC features, including slow proliferation rates [45,48] and usually they remain unaffected by these drugs. Therefore, treatment-wise, this becomes a challenging issue: pruning the branches from the mistletoe does not kill the parasite, perhaps it will make it grow more vigorously instead. The literature describes the same order of magnitude in the number of cells per volume within wild-type epithelial tissues and tumours of epithelial origin [141–144] (~108 cells/cm3 ). An open possibility is to tackle the mechanisms controlling tumour size. During tumoral growth, different clones of cells are generated, which might reflect reminiscent patterning cues. Within the tumoral field, as happens during wild-type organ growth, clones of cells can act as sources of morphogens and other secreted factors, cooperating with each other and thus controlling tumour size [122,126,128,145] (Figure 3A). Morphogens and other secreted factors can be produced by tumoral cells, secreted, and spread throughout the tissue [122,126,128,145], then acting in a paracrine fashion on other cells by regulating growth and pattern formation [122,126,128,145]. In this context, altering the biophysical properties of the tumoral field could be an option to consider for therapeutic purposes. Hence, by decreasing the range of these secreted factors within the tumoral field, proliferative rates of cancer cells might decrease, and therefore modulate tumour growth (Figure 3A,B). Regarding these issues, we expect that future research will uncover the mechanistic “forces” driving organ growth, which may pave the way to the implementation of new strategies to impair human tumorigenesis. Cells FOR PEER REVIEW Cells2023, 2023,12, 12,x872 8 7ofof14 12 Figure 3. Clonal cooperation and tumoral growth. During tumoral growth, different Figure 3. Clonal cooperation and tumoral growth. During tumoral growth, different clones/subclones/subclones of cancer cells are generated, which can act as secreted factor sources, boostclones of cancer cells are generated, which can act as secreted factor sources, boosting tumoral ing tumoral growth. The spread of these secreted factors depend on the biophysical properties of the growth. The spread of these secreted factors depend on the biophysical properties of the tumoral tumoral (A). Depicted plot normalized showing normalized secreted factor concentration vs. normalized field. (A).field. Depicted plot showing secreted factor concentration vs. normalized field pofield position within the tumoral field a. Different colours depict different secreted factors. sition within the tumoral field a. Different colours depict different secreted factors. TumoralTumoral field a field a (tumour shows high spreading biophysical properties, increasing the range of these secreted a), shows spreading biophysical properties, increasing the range of these secreted fac(tumour a ),high factors throughout tumoral field. These to clonal/subclonal cooperation, increasing tors throughout the the tumoral field. These can can leadlead to clonal/subclonal cooperation, increasing the proliferation of cancer cellscells andand therefore boosting tumoral growth the proliferation of cancer therefore boosting tumoral growthrates rates(g). (g).(B). (B).Depicted Depictedplot plot showing showingnormalized normalizedsecreted secretedfactor factorconcentration concentrationvs. vs.normalized normalizedfield fieldposition positionwithin withinthe thetumoral tumoral field fieldb. b. Different Differentcolours coloursdepict depictdifferent different secreted secreted factors. factors. Tumoral Tumoralfield field bb (tumour (tumourbb) )shows showslow low spreading biophysical properties; thus, secreted factors spread over small ranges within the tumoral spreading biophysical properties; thus, secreted factors spread over small ranges within the tumoral field. Small ranges of secreted factors in the tumoral field can abolish clonal cooperation and defield. Small ranges of secreted factors in the tumoral field can abolish clonal cooperation and decrease crease tumoral growth rates (g). (C). s: refers to the spreading ranges of secreted factors; g: refers to tumoral growth rates (g). (C). s:torefers the tumoral growth rate; t: refers time.to the spreading ranges of secreted factors; g: refers to the tumoral growth rate; t: refers to time. Author Contributions: Both authors contributed equally to the conceptualization of this work, writing of the manuscript and figure preparation. The authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Cells 2023, 12, 872 8 of 12 Author Contributions: Both authors contributed equally to the conceptualization of this work, writing of the manuscript and figure preparation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: M.M.M. was supported by Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) (SystemsX.ch, Transition Postdoc Fellowship) and Novartis Foundation Fellowships. The work in JAGS’ laboratory is supported by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation PID2019-105404RB-I00, financed by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033. Acknowledgments: We apologize to all colleagues whose work we have unintentionally neglected to cite. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Erwin, D.H. Early metazoan life: Divergence, environment and ecology. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 370. [CrossRef] Condie, K.C. Earth as an Evolving Planetary System, 4th ed.; Academic Press: London, UK; San Diego, CA, USA, 2022; p. vii. 397p. Ruiz-Trillo, I.; Burger, G.; Holland, P.W.; King, N.; Lang, B.F.; Roger, A.J.; Gray, M.W. The origins of multicellularity: A multi-taxon genome initiative. Trends Genet. 2007, 23, 113–118. [CrossRef] Ros-Rocher, N.; Perez-Posada, A.; Leger, M.M.; Ruiz-Trillo, I. The origin of animals: An ancestral reconstruction of the unicellularto-multicellular transition. Open Biol. 2021, 11, 200359. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Rokas, A. The origins of multicellularity and the early history of the genetic toolkit for animal development. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2008, 42, 235–251. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Brunet, T.; King, N. The Origin of Animal Multicellularity and Cell Differentiation. Dev. Cell 2017, 43, 124–140. [CrossRef] Cooper, G.A.; West, S.A. Division of labour and the evolution of extreme specialization. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 2, 1161–1167. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Rueffler, C.; Hermisson, J.; Wagner, G.P. Evolution of functional specialization and division of labor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, E326–E335. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Muller, W.E. Origin of Metazoa: Sponges as living fossils. Naturwissenschaften 1998, 85, 11–25. [CrossRef] Borisenko, I.; Podgornaya, O.I.; Ereskovsky, A.V. From traveler to homebody: Which signaling mechanisms sponge larvae use to become adult sponges? Adv. Protein Chem. Struct. Biol. 2019, 116, 421–449. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Ereskovsky, A.V.; Renard, E.; Borchiellini, C. Cellular and molecular processes leading to embryo formation in sponges: Evidences for high conservation of processes throughout animal evolution. Dev. Genes Evol. 2013, 223, 5–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Adams, E.D.; Goss, G.G.; Leys, S.P. Freshwater sponges have functional, sealing epithelia with high transepithelial resistance and negative transepithelial potential. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e15040. [CrossRef] Chakraborty, C.; Agoramoorthy, G. Stem cells in the light of evolution. Indian J. Med. Res. 2012, 135, 813–819. Meyer, S.N.; Amoyel, M.; Bergantinos, C.; de la Cova, C.; Schertel, C.; Basler, K.; Johnston, L.A. An ancient defense system eliminates unfit cells from developing tissues during cell competition. Science 2014, 346, 1258236. [CrossRef] Daley, G.Q. Stem cells and the evolving notion of cellular identity. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 370, 20140376. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Zakrzewski, W.; Dobrzynski, M.; Szymonowicz, M.; Rybak, Z. Stem cells: Past, present, and future. Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2019, 10, 68. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Breidbach, O. Visions of Nature: The Art and Science of Ernst Haeckel; Prestel: Munich, Germany; London, UK, 2006; 299p. Ramalho-Santos, M.; Willenbring, H. On the origin of the term “stem cell”. Cell Stem Cell 2007, 1, 35–38. [CrossRef] [PubMed] McCulloch, E.A.; Till, J.E. The radiation sensitivity of normal mouse bone marrow cells, determined by quantitative marrow transplantation into irradiated mice. Radiat Res. 1960, 13, 115–125. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Becker, A.J.; Mc, C.E.; Till, J.E. Cytological demonstration of the clonal nature of spleen colonies derived from transplanted mouse marrow cells. Nature 1963, 197, 452–454. [CrossRef] Sharkis, S.J. Canadian stem cell scientists take the prize. Cell 2005, 122, 817–819. [CrossRef] Funayama, N. The stem cell system in demosponges: Insights into the origin of somatic stem cells. Dev. Growth Differ. 2010, 52, 1–14. [CrossRef] Muller, W.E. The stem cell concept in sponges (Porifera): Metazoan traits. Semin Cell Dev. Biol. 2006, 17, 481–491. [CrossRef] Bhoi, S.B.; Kamle, R.A.; Meshram, S.K.; Waghmare, S.A.; Shirsat, K.B. Study of correlation of organ and body weight during autopsy with regard to age and sex in adult population at Solapur region. Indian J. Forensic Community Med. 2017, 4, 115–120. Shackleton, M.; Vaillant, F.; Simpson, K.J.; Stingl, J.; Smyth, G.K.; Asselin-Labat, M.L.; Wu, L.; Lindeman, G.J.; Visvader, J.E. Generation of a functional mammary gland from a single stem cell. Nature 2006, 439, 84–88. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Diaz-Guerra, E.; Lillo, M.A.; Santamaria, S.; Garcia-Sanz, J.A. Intrinsic cues and hormones control mouse mammary epithelial tree size. FASEB J. 2012, 26, 3844–3853. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Cells 2023, 12, 872 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 9 of 12 Stingl, J.; Eirew, P.; Ricketson, I.; Shackleton, M.; Vaillant, F.; Choi, D.; Li, H.I.; Eaves, C.J. Purification and unique properties of mammary epithelial stem cells. Nature 2006, 439, 993–997. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Trivanovic, D. Adult Stem Cells in Aging. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 795. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Bhartiya, D. Adult tissue-resident stem cells-fact or fiction? Stem Cell Res. Ther. 2021, 12, 73. [CrossRef] Kalderon, D. Investigating Adult Stem Cells Through Lineage analyses. Stem Cell Rev. Rep. 2022, 18, 2–22. [CrossRef] Altshuler, A.; Wickstrom, S.A.; Shalom-Feuerstein, R. Spotlighting adult stem cells: Advances, pitfalls, and challenges. Trends Cell Biol. 2022. [CrossRef] Pulciani, S.; Santos, E.; Lauver, A.V.; Long, L.K.; Robbins, K.C.; Barbacid, M. Oncogenes in human tumor cell lines: Molecular cloning of a transforming gene from human bladder carcinoma cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1982, 79, 2845–2849. [CrossRef] Pulciani, S.; Santos, E.; Lauver, A.V.; Long, L.K.; Barbacid, M. Transforming genes in human tumors. J. Cell Biochem. 1982, 20, 51–61. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Hanahan, D.; Weinberg, R.A. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 2000, 100, 57–70. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Hanahan, D. Hallmarks of Cancer: New Dimensions. Cancer Discov. 2022, 12, 31–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Reya, T.; Morrison, S.J.; Clarke, M.F.; Weissman, I.L. Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells. Nature 2001, 414, 105–111. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Al-Hajj, M.; Wicha, M.S.; Benito-Hernandez, A.; Morrison, S.J.; Clarke, M.F. Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 3983–3988. [CrossRef] Singh, S.K.; Hawkins, C.; Clarke, I.D.; Squire, J.A.; Bayani, J.; Hide, T.; Henkelman, R.M.; Cusimano, M.D.; Dirks, P.B. Identification of human brain tumour initiating cells. Nature 2004, 432, 396–401. [CrossRef] Lapidot, T.; Sirard, C.; Vormoor, J.; Murdoch, B.; Hoang, T.; Caceres-Cortes, J.; Minden, M.; Paterson, B.; Caligiuri, M.A.; Dick, J.E. A cell initiating human acute myeloid leukaemia after transplantation into SCID mice. Nature 1994, 367, 645–648. [CrossRef] Rowan, K. Are cancer stem cells real? After four decades, debate still simmers. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 2009, 101, 546–547. [CrossRef] Chen, J.; Li, Y.; Yu, T.S.; McKay, R.M.; Burns, D.K.; Kernie, S.G.; Parada, L.F. A restricted cell population propagates glioblastoma growth after chemotherapy. Nature 2012, 488, 522–526. [CrossRef] Driessens, G.; Beck, B.; Caauwe, A.; Simons, B.D.; Blanpain, C. Defining the mode of tumour growth by clonal analysis. Nature 2012, 488, 527–530. [CrossRef] Schepers, A.G.; Snippert, H.J.; Stange, D.E.; van den Born, M.; van Es, J.H.; van de Wetering, M.; Clevers, H. Lineage tracing reveals Lgr5+ stem cell activity in mouse intestinal adenomas. Science 2012, 337, 730–735. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Zomer, A.; Ellenbroek, S.I.; Ritsma, L.; Beerling, E.; Vrisekoop, N.; Van Rheenen, J. Intravital imaging of cancer stem cell plasticity in mammary tumors. Stem Cells 2013, 31, 602–606. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Barbato, L.; Bocchetti, M.; Di Biase, A.; Regad, T. Cancer Stem Cells and Targeting Strategies. Cells 2019, 8, 926. [CrossRef] Biserova, K.; Jakovlevs, A.; Uljanovs, R.; Strumfa, I. Cancer Stem Cells: Significance in Origin, Pathogenesis and Treatment of Glioblastoma. Cells 2021, 10, 621. [CrossRef] Li, F.; Xu, J.; Liu, S. Cancer Stem Cells and Neovascularization. Cells 2021, 10, 1070. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Peitzsch, C.; Tyutyunnykova, A.; Pantel, K.; Dubrovska, A. Cancer stem cells: The root of tumor recurrence and metastases. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2017, 44, 10–24. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Egeblad, M.; Nakasone, E.S.; Werb, Z. Tumors as organs: Complex tissues that interface with the entire organism. Dev. Cell 2010, 18, 884–901. [CrossRef] Acharyya, S.; Ladner, K.J.; Nelsen, L.L.; Damrauer, J.; Reiser, P.J.; Swoap, S.; Guttridge, D.C. Cancer cachexia is regulated by selective targeting of skeletal muscle gene products. J. Clin. Investig. 2004, 114, 370–378. [CrossRef] Skipworth, R.J.; Stewart, G.D.; Dejong, C.H.; Preston, T.; Fearon, K.C. Pathophysiology of cancer cachexia: Much more than host-tumour interaction? Clin. Nutr. 2007, 26, 667–676. [CrossRef] Sottoriva, A.; Kang, H.; Ma, Z.; Graham, T.A.; Salomon, M.P.; Zhao, J.; Marjoram, P.; Siegmund, K.; Press, M.F.; Shibata, D.; et al. A Big Bang model of human colorectal tumor growth. Nat. Genet. 2015, 47, 209–216. [CrossRef] Dalerba, P.; Kalisky, T.; Sahoo, D.; Rajendran, P.S.; Rothenberg, M.E.; Leyrat, A.A.; Sim, S.; Okamoto, J.; Johnston, D.M.; Qian, D.; et al. Single-cell dissection of transcriptional heterogeneity in human colon tumors. Nat. Biotechnol. 2011, 29, 1120–1127. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Waarts, M.R.; Stonestrom, A.J.; Park, Y.C.; Levine, R.L. Targeting mutations in cancer. J. Clin. Investig. 2022, 132, 1–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Trosko, J.E. The Concept of “Cancer Stem Cells” in the Context of Classic Carcinogenesis Hypotheses and Experimental Findings. Life 2021, 11, 1308. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Sepich-Poore, G.D.; Zitvogel, L.; Straussman, R.; Hasty, J.; Wargo, J.A.; Knight, R. The microbiome and human cancer. Science 2021, 371, eabc4552. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Park, E.M.; Chelvanambi, M.; Bhutiani, N.; Kroemer, G.; Zitvogel, L.; Wargo, J.A. Targeting the gut and tumor microbiota in cancer. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 690–703. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Kim, M.; Mahmood, M.; Reznik, E.; Gammage, P.A. Mitochondrial DNA is a major source of driver mutations in cancer. Trends Cancer 2022, 8, 1046–1059. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Dong, J.; Wong, L.J.; Mims, M.P. Mitochondrial inheritance and cancer. Transl. Res. 2018, 202, 24–34. [CrossRef] Cells 2023, 12, 872 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 10 of 12 Dietrich, C.; Weiss, C.; Bockamp, E.; Brisken, C.; Roskams, T.; Morris, R.; Oesch-Bartlomowicz, B.; Oesch, F. Stem cells in chemical carcinogenesis. Arch. Toxicol. 2010, 84, 245–251. [CrossRef] Lewandowska, A.M.; Rudzki, M.; Rudzki, S.; Lewandowski, T.; Laskowska, B. Environmental risk factors for cancer—Review paper. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2019, 26, 1–7. [CrossRef] Merino, M.M.; Levayer, R.; Moreno, E. Survival of the Fittest: Essential Roles of Cell Competition in Development, Aging, and Cancer. Trends Cell Biol. 2016, 26, 776–788. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Menendez, J.; Perez-Garijo, A.; Calleja, M.; Morata, G. A tumor-suppressing mechanism in Drosophila involving cell competition and the Hippo pathway. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 14651–14656. [CrossRef] Madan, E.; Pelham, C.J.; Nagane, M.; Parker, T.M.; Canas-Marques, R.; Fazio, K.; Shaik, K.; Yuan, Y.; Henriques, V.; Galzerano, A.; et al. Flower isoforms promote competitive growth in cancer. Nature 2019, 572, 260–264. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Levayer, R.; Hauert, B.; Moreno, E. Cell mixing induced by myc is required for competitive tissue invasion and destruction. Nature 2015, 524, 476–480. [CrossRef] Gil, J.; Rodriguez, T. Cancer: The Transforming Power of Cell Competition. Curr. Biol. 2016, 26, R164–R166. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Fahey-Lozano, N.; La Marca, J.E.; Portela, M.; Richardson, H.E. Drosophila Models of Cell Polarity and Cell Competition in Tumourigenesis. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2019, 1167, 37–64. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Mumbauer, S.; Pascual, J.; Kolotuev, I.; Hamaratoglu, F. Ferritin heavy chain protects the developing wing from reactive oxygen species and ferroptosis. PLoS Genet. 2019, 15, e1008396. [CrossRef] Morata, G.; Ripoll, P. Minutes: Mutants of drosophila autonomously affecting cell division rate. Dev. Biol. 1975, 42, 211–221. [CrossRef] Morata, G. Cell competition: A historical perspective. Dev. Biol. 2021, 476, 33–40. [CrossRef] Claveria, C.; Giovinazzo, G.; Sierra, R.; Torres, M. Myc-driven endogenous cell competition in the early mammalian embryo. Nature 2013, 500, 39–44. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Merino, M.M.; Rhiner, C.; Lopez-Gay, J.M.; Buechel, D.; Hauert, B.; Moreno, E. Elimination of unfit cells maintains tissue health and prolongs lifespan. Cell 2015, 160, 461–476. [CrossRef] Merino, M.M.; Rhiner, C.; Portela, M.; Moreno, E. “Fitness fingerprints” mediate physiological culling of unwanted neurons in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 2013, 23, 1300–1309. [CrossRef] Lima, A.; Lubatti, G.; Burgstaller, J.; Hu, D.; Green, A.P.; Di Gregorio, A.; Zawadzki, T.; Pernaute, B.; Mahammadov, E.; PerezMontero, S.; et al. Cell competition acts as a purifying selection to eliminate cells with mitochondrial defects during early mouse development. Nat. Metab. 2021, 3, 1091–1108. [CrossRef] Langton, P.F.; Baumgartner, M.E.; Logeay, R.; Piddini, E. Xrp1 and Irbp18 trigger a feed-forward loop of proteotoxic stress to induce the loser status. PLoS Genet. 2021, 17, e1009946. [CrossRef] Baumgartner, M.E.; Dinan, M.P.; Langton, P.F.; Kucinski, I.; Piddini, E. Proteotoxic stress is a driver of the loser status and cell competition. Nat. Cell Biol. 2021, 23, 136–146. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Vincent, J.P.; Fletcher, A.G.; Baena-Lopez, L.A. Mechanisms and mechanics of cell competition in epithelia. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2013, 14, 581–591. [CrossRef] Nagata, R.; Igaki, T. Cell competition: Emerging mechanisms to eliminate neighbors. Dev. Growth Differ. 2018, 60, 522–530. [CrossRef] Baillon, L.; Basler, K. Reflections on cell competition. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2014, 32, 137–144. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Baker, N.E. Emerging mechanisms of cell competition. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2020, 21, 683–697. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Maruyama, T.; Fujita, Y. Cell competition in vertebrates—A key machinery for tissue homeostasis. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 2022, 72, 15–21. [CrossRef] Villa Del Campo, C.; Torres, M. Changing the Rules of the Game: How Winners Become Losers during Oncogenic Cell Selection. Cell Stem Cell 2019, 25, 299–300. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Munoz-Martin, N.; Sierra, R.; Schimmang, T.; Villa Del Campo, C.; Torres, M. Myc is dispensable for cardiomyocyte development but rescues Mycn-deficient hearts through functional replacement and cell competition. Development 2019, 146, dev.170753. [CrossRef] Fernandez-Antoran, D.; Piedrafita, G.; Murai, K.; Ong, S.H.; Herms, A.; Frezza, C.; Jones, P.H. Outcompeting p53-Mutant Cells in the Normal Esophagus by Redox Manipulation. Cell Stem Cell 2019, 25, 329–341.e326. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Merino, M.M. Azot expression in the Drosophila gut modulates organismal lifespan. Commun. Integr. Biol. 2023, 16, 2156735. [CrossRef] Maheden, K.; Zhang, V.W.; Shakiba, N. The Field of Cell Competition Comes of Age: Semantics and Technological Synergy. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2022, 10, 891569. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Merino, M.M.; Gonzalez-Gaitan, M. To fit or not to fit: Death decisions from morphogen fields. Trends Cell Biol. 2022, 33, 92–94. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Merino, M.M.; Seum, C.; Dubois, M.; Gonzalez-Gaitan, M. A role for Flower and cell death in controlling morphogen gradient scaling. Nat. Cell Biol. 2022, 24, 424–433. [CrossRef] Casas-Tinto, S.; Torres, M.; Moreno, E. The flower code and cancer development. Clin. Transl. Oncol. 2011, 13, 5–9. [CrossRef] Adachi-Yamada, T.; O’Connor, M.B. Morphogenetic apoptosis: A mechanism for correcting discontinuities in morphogen gradients. Dev. Biol. 2002, 251, 74–90. [CrossRef] Cells 2023, 12, 872 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 11 of 12 Moreno, E.; Basler, K.; Morata, G. Cells compete for decapentaplegic survival factor to prevent apoptosis in Drosophila wing development. Nature 2002, 416, 755–759. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Moreno, E.; Basler, K. dMyc transforms cells into super-competitors. Cell 2004, 117, 117–129. [CrossRef] Adachi-Yamada, T.; O’Connor, M.B. Mechanisms for removal of developmentally abnormal cells: Cell competition and morphogenetic apoptosis. J. Biochem. 2004, 136, 13–17. [CrossRef] Baker, N.E.; Kale, A. Mutations in ribosomal proteins: Apoptosis, cell competition, and cancer. Mol. Cell Oncol. 2016, 3, e1029065. [CrossRef] de la Cova, C.; Abril, M.; Bellosta, P.; Gallant, P.; Johnston, L.A. Drosophila myc regulates organ size by inducing cell competition. Cell 2004, 117, 107–116. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Gallant, P. Myc, cell competition, and compensatory proliferation. Cancer Res. 2005, 65, 6485–6487. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Vincent, J.P.; Kolahgar, G.; Gagliardi, M.; Piddini, E. Steep differences in wingless signaling trigger Myc-independent competitive cell interactions. Dev. Cell 2011, 21, 366–374. [CrossRef] Akai, N.; Igaki, T.; Ohsawa, S. Wingless signaling regulates winner/loser status in Minute cell competition. Genes Cells 2018, 23, 234–240. [CrossRef] Akieda, Y.; Ogamino, S.; Furuie, H.; Ishitani, S.; Akiyoshi, R.; Nogami, J.; Masuda, T.; Shimizu, N.; Ohkawa, Y.; Ishitani, T. Cell competition corrects noisy Wnt morphogen gradients to achieve robust patterning in the zebrafish embryo. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 4710. [CrossRef] Azubuike, U.F.; Tanner, K. Biophysical determinants of cancer organotropism. Trends Cancer 2022, 9, 188–197. [CrossRef] Fares, J.; Fares, M.Y.; Khachfe, H.H.; Salhab, H.A.; Fares, Y. Molecular principles of metastasis: A hallmark of cancer revisited. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2020, 5, 28. [CrossRef] Yang, J.; Manson, D.K.; Marr, B.P.; Carvajal, R.D. Treatment of uveal melanoma: Where are we now? Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 2018, 10, 1758834018757175. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Liu, Q.; Zhang, R.; Michalski, C.W.; Liu, B.; Liao, Q.; Kleeff, J. Surgery for synchronous and metachronous single-organ metastasis of pancreatic cancer: A SEER database analysis and systematic literature review. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 4444. [CrossRef] Gandaglia, G.; Karakiewicz, P.I.; Briganti, A.; Passoni, N.M.; Schiffmann, J.; Trudeau, V.; Graefen, M.; Montorsi, F.; Sun, M. Impact of the Site of Metastases on Survival in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer. Eur. Urol. 2015, 68, 325–334. [CrossRef] Vela, M.; Aris, M.; Llorente, M.; Garcia-Sanz, J.A.; Kremer, L. Chemokine receptor-specific antibodies in cancer immunotherapy: Achievements and challenges. Front. Immunol. 2015, 6, 12. [CrossRef] Amersi, F.F.; Terando, A.M.; Goto, Y.; Scolyer, R.A.; Thompson, J.F.; Tran, A.N.; Faries, M.B.; Morton, D.L.; Hoon, D.S. Activation of CCR9/CCL25 in cutaneous melanoma mediates preferential metastasis to the small intestine. Clin. Cancer Res. 2008, 14, 638–645. [CrossRef] Johnson-Holiday, C.; Singh, R.; Johnson, E.; Singh, S.; Stockard, C.R.; Grizzle, W.E.; Lillard, J.W., Jr. CCL25 mediates migration, invasion and matrix metalloproteinase expression by breast cancer cells in a CCR9-dependent fashion. Int. J. Oncol. 2011, 38, 1279–1285. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Letsch, A.; Keilholz, U.; Schadendorf, D.; Assfalg, G.; Asemissen, A.M.; Thiel, E.; Scheibenbogen, C. Functional CCR9 expression is associated with small intestinal metastasis. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2004, 122, 685–690. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Mirandola, L.; Chiriva-Internati, M.; Montagna, D.; Locatelli, F.; Zecca, M.; Ranzani, M.; Basile, A.; Locati, M.; Cobos, E.; Kast, W.M.; et al. Notch1 regulates chemotaxis and proliferation by controlling the CC-chemokine receptors 5 and 9 in T cell acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. J. Pathol. 2012, 226, 713–722. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Qiuping, Z.; Qun, L.; Chunsong, H.; Xiaolian, Z.; Baojun, H.; Mingzhen, Y.; Chengming, L.; Jinshen, H.; Qingping, G.; Kejian, Z.; et al. Selectively increased expression and functions of chemokine receptor CCR9 on CD4+ T cells from patients with T-cell lineage acute lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer Res. 2003, 63, 6469–6477. Singh, S.; Singh, U.P.; Stiles, J.K.; Grizzle, W.E.; Lillard, J.W., Jr. Expression and functional role of CCR9 in prostate cancer cell migration and invasion. Clin. Cancer Res. 2004, 10, 8743–8750. [CrossRef] van den Oord, J. The CCR9-CCL25 axis mediates melanoma metastasis to the small intestine. Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 2008, 5, 440–441. [CrossRef] Akhtar, M.; Haider, A.; Rashid, S.; Al-Nabet, A. Paget’s “Seed and Soil” Theory of Cancer Metastasis: An Idea Whose Time has Come. Adv. Anat. Pathol. 2019, 26, 69–74. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Langley, R.R.; Fidler, I.J. The seed and soil hypothesis revisited–the role of tumor-stroma interactions in metastasis to different organs. Int. J. Cancer 2011, 128, 2527–2535. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Thompson, D.A.W. On Growth and Form; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1917. Hamaratoglu, F.; de Lachapelle, A.M.; Pyrowolakis, G.; Bergmann, S.; Affolter, M. Dpp signaling activity requires Pentagone to scale with tissue size in the growing Drosophila wing imaginal disc. PLoS Biol. 2011, 9, e1001182. [CrossRef] Stapornwongkul, K.S.; de Gennes, M.; Cocconi, L.; Salbreux, G.; Vincent, J.P. Patterning and growth control in vivo by an engineered GFP gradient. Science 2020, 370, 321–327. [CrossRef] Martin, F.A.; Perez-Garijo, A.; Moreno, E.; Morata, G. The brinker gradient controls wing growth in Drosophila. Development 2004, 131, 4921–4930. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Nellen, D.; Burke, R.; Struhl, G.; Basler, K. Direct and long-range action of a DPP morphogen gradient. Cell 1996, 85, 357–368. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Cells 2023, 12, 872 12 of 12 120. Wartlick, O.; Mumcu, P.; Kicheva, A.; Bittig, T.; Seum, C.; Julicher, F.; Gonzalez-Gaitan, M. Dynamics of Dpp Signaling and Proliferation Control. Science 2011, 331, 1154–1159. [CrossRef] 121. Zecca, M.; Struhl, G. A unified mechanism for the control of Drosophila wing growth by the morphogens Decapentaplegic and Wingless. PLoS Biol. 2021, 19, e3001111. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 122. Matsuda, S.; Schaefer, J.V.; Mii, Y.; Hori, Y.; Bieli, D.; Taira, M.; Pluckthun, A.; Affolter, M. Asymmetric requirement of Dpp/BMP morphogen dispersal in the Drosophila wing disc. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 6435. [CrossRef] 123. Harmansa, S.; Hamaratoglu, F.; Affolter, M.; Caussinus, E. Dpp spreading is required for medial but not for lateral wing disc growth. Nature 2015, 527, 317–322. [CrossRef] 124. Hamaratoglu, F.; Affolter, M.; Pyrowolakis, G. Dpp/BMP signaling in flies: From molecules to biology. Semin. Cell Dev. Biol. 2014, 32, 128–136. [CrossRef] 125. Akiyama, T.; Kamimura, K.; Firkus, C.; Takeo, S.; Shimmi, O.; Nakato, H. Dally regulates Dpp morphogen gradient formation by stabilizing Dpp on the cell surface. Dev. Biol. 2008, 313, 408–419. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 126. Vuilleumier, R.; Springhorn, A.; Patterson, L.; Koidl, S.; Hammerschmidt, M.; Affolter, M.; Pyrowolakis, G. Control of Dpp morphogen signalling by a secreted feedback regulator. Nat. Cell Biol. 2010, 12, 611–617. [CrossRef] 127. Simon, N.; Safyan, A.; Pyrowolakis, G.; Matsuda, S. Dally is not essential for Dpp spreading or internalization but for Dpp stability by antagonizing Tkv-mediated Dpp internalization. bioRxiv 2023. [CrossRef] 128. Norman, M.; Vuilleumier, R.; Springhorn, A.; Gawlik, J.; Pyrowolakis, G. Pentagone internalises glypicans to fine-tune multiple signalling pathways. Elife 2016, 5, e13301. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 129. Ben-Zvi, D.; Pyrowolakis, G.; Barkai, N.; Shilo, B.Z. Expansion-repression mechanism for scaling the Dpp activation gradient in Drosophila wing imaginal discs. Curr. Biol. 2011, 21, 1391–1396. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 130. Bely, A.E.; Nyberg, K.G. Evolution of animal regeneration: Re-emergence of a field. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 161–170. [CrossRef] 131. Maden, M. The evolution of regeneration—Where does that leave mammals? Int. J. Dev. Biol. 2018, 62, 369–372. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 132. Lai, A.G.; Aboobaker, A.A. EvoRegen in animals: Time to uncover deep conservation or convergence of adult stem cell evolution and regenerative processes. Dev. Biol. 2018, 433, 118–131. [CrossRef] 133. Mubbunu, L.; Bowa, K.; Petrenko, V.; Silitongo, M. Correlation of Internal Organ Weights with Body Weight and Body Height in Normal Adult Zambians: A Case Study of Ndola Teaching Hospital. Anat. Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 4687538. [CrossRef] 134. Vaibhav, V.; Meshram, R.; Shukla, P.K.; Kalonia, T.; Bhute, A.R. A Preliminary Study of Organ Weight After Histological Exclusion of Abnormality During Autopsy in the Adult Population of Uttarakhand, India. Cureus 2022, 14, e27044. [CrossRef] 135. Greif, J.M.; Pezzi, C.M.; Klimberg, V.S.; Bailey, L.; Zuraek, M. Gender differences in breast cancer: Analysis of 13,000 breast cancers in men from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2012, 19, 3199–3204. [CrossRef] 136. Li, H.; Wei, Z.; Wang, C.; Chen, W.; He, Y.; Zhang, C. Gender Differences in Gastric Cancer Survival: 99,922 Cases Based on the SEER Database. J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2020, 24, 1747–1757. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 137. Yu, J.; Blackford, A.L.; Dal Molin, M.; Wolfgang, C.L.; Goggins, M. Time to progression of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from low-to-high tumour stages. Gut 2015, 64, 1783–1789. [CrossRef] 138. Zhou, L.; Li, W.; Cai, S.; Yang, C.; Liu, Y.; Lin, Z. Large tumor size is a poor prognostic factor of gastric cancer with signet ring cell: Results from the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results database. Medicine 2019, 98, e17367. [CrossRef] 139. Kasangian, A.A.; Gherardi, G.; Biagioli, E.; Torri, V.; Moretti, A.; Bernardin, E.; Cordovana, A.; Farina, G.; Bramati, A.; Piva, S.; et al. The prognostic role of tumor size in early breast cancer in the era of molecular biology. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0189127. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 140. Thompson, R.C., Jr.; Garg, A.; Goswitz, J.; Cheng, E.Y.; Clohisy, D.R.; Dusenbery, K. Synovial sarcoma. Large size predicts poor outcome. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 2000, 373, 18–24. [CrossRef] 141. Wunderlich, S.; Haase, A.; Merkert, S.; Jahn, K.; Deest, M.; Frieling, H.; Glage, S.; Korte, W.; Martens, A.; Kirschning, A.; et al. Targeted biallelic integration of an inducible Caspase 9 suicide gene in iPSCs for safer therapies. Mol. Ther. Methods Clin. Dev. 2022, 26, 84–94. [CrossRef] 142. Tian, Y.; Zhao, S.; Zheng, J.; Li, Z.; Hou, C.; Qi, X.; Kong, D.; Zhang, J.; Huang, X. A stereological study of 3D printed tissues engineered from rat vaginas. Ann. Transl. Med. 2020, 8, 1490. [CrossRef] 143. Holt, P.G.; Degebrodt, A.; Venaille, T.; O’Leary, C.; Krska, K.; Flexman, J.; Farrell, H.; Shellam, G.; Young, P.; Penhale, J.; et al. Preparation of interstitial lung cells by enzymatic digestion of tissue slices: Preliminary characterization by morphology and performance in functional assays. Immunology 1985, 54, 139–147. [PubMed] 144. Del Monte, U. Does the cell number 10(9) still really fit one gram of tumor tissue? Cell Cycle 2009, 8, 505–506. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 145. Affolter, M.; Basler, K. The Decapentaplegic morphogen gradient: From pattern formation to growth regulation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2007, 8, 663–674. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.