Theodor Boveri and the origin of malignant tumours

As long ago as 1914, Theodor Boveri suggested that there is an inhibitory mechanism in every normal cell that prevents the process of cell division until the inhibition has been overcome by a special stimulus. From his work on abnormal mitoses in the eggs of echinoderms, Boveri also suggested that the inhibitor resided in the chromosomes. The relevance of Boveri's ideas to modern cancer research is discussed in this Retrospective article.     

Hansemann, Boveri, chromosomes and the gametogenesis-related theories of tumours

Theodor Boveri (1862-1915) is often credited with suggesting (in 1914) the first chromosomal theory of cancer, especially in terms of abnormal numbers of chromosomes arising in cells by multipolar mitoses in adult cells. However, multipolar mitoses in animal cells had been described as early as 1875, and Hansemann (1858-1920), in publications between 1890 and 1919, included this mechanism among various ways by which abnormal chromosome numbers might arise in cells and cause tumour formation. Both theories were conceived in a period when gametogenic ideas of tumour formation were current. Boveri based his theory on the observation that some cells in early sea urchin embryos having abnormal chromosome complements wander from their usual developmental paths. His observation may have been seen by other authors at the time as support for Cohnheim's "embryonic cell rest" theory of cancer. Hansemann's contribution is seen as both the original, and the more significant of the chromosomal theories of cancer.     

A Century of Sea Urchin Development

SYNOPSIS. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century severalinvestigators including Richard and Oskar Hertwig, Theodor Boveri,Hans Driesch, Curt Herbst, T. H. Morgan and others turned theirattention to sea urchin eggs and early embryos. This favorablecombination of outstanding investigators and the sea urchinembryo as an experimental organism contributed to a fundamentalunderstanding of the cell, fertilization and heredity. The advantagesof the sea urchin continued to be recognized as experimentalembryologists used these embryos to develop the concepts ofgradients, regulative development and inductive interactions.Then, as developmental biology arose from chemical embryology,the sea urchin embryo once again emerged as an ideal experimentalanimal, pivotal in the understanding of the molecular and developmentalbiology of eukaryotic organisms.     

Boveri's long experiment: sea urchin merogones and the establishment of the role of nuclear chromosomes in development

Theodor Boveri's major intellectual contribution was his focus on the causality of nuclear chromosomal determinants for embryological development. His initial experimental attempt to demonstrate that the character of the developing embryo is determined by nuclear rather than cytoplasmic factors was launched in 1889. The experimental design was to fertilize enucleate sea urchin eggs with sperm of another species that produces a distinguishably different embryonic morphology. Boveri's “hybrid merogone” experiment provided what he initially thought was empirical evidence for the nuclear control of development. However, for subtle reasons, the data were not interpretable and the experiment was repeated and contested. At the end of his life, Boveri was finally able to explain the technical difficulties that had beset the original experiment. However, by 1902 Boveri had carried out his famous polyspermy experiments, which provided decisive evidence for the role of nuclear chromosomal determinants in embryogenesis. Here we present the history of the hybrid merogone experiment as an important case of conceptual reasoning paired with (often difficult) experimental approaches. We then trace the further history of the merogone and normal species hybrid approaches that this experiment had set in train, and review their results from the standpoint of current insights. The history of Boveri's hybrid merogone experiment suggests important lessons about the interplay between what we call “models”, the specific intellectual statements we conceive about how biology works, and the sometimes difficult task of generating experimental proof for these concepts.     

Rise, fall and resurrection of chromosome territories: a historical perspective. Part I. The rise of chromosome territories

It is now generally accepted that chromosomes in the cell nucleus are organized in distinct domains, first called chromosome territories in 1909 by the great cytologist Theodor Boveri. Yet, even today chromosomes have remained enigmatic individuals, whose structures, arrangements and functions in cycling and post-mitotic cells still need to be explored in full detail. Whereas numerous recent reviews describe present evidence for a dynamic architecture of chromosome territories and discuss the potential significance within the functional compartmentalization of the nucleus, a comprehensive historical account of this important concept of nuclear organization was lacking so far. Here, we describe the early rise of chromosome territories within the context of the discovery of chromosomes and their fundamental role in heredity, covering a period from the 1870th to the early 20th century (part I, this volume). In part II (next volume) we review the abandonment of the chromosome territory concept during the 1950th to 1980th and the compelling evidence, which led to its resurrection during the 1970th to 1980th.     

Reappraisal of the Hansemann–Boveri hypothesis on the origin of tumors

Cancer is now known to be a genetic disease. In tumor development, cell nuclei undergo mutations, which can result in cytologically visible chromosome aberrations. The aneuploid errors may involve amplification or deletion of whole chromosomes or segments thereof. David Hansemann [1858–1920] and Theodor Boveri [1862–1915] were major contributors to early debates on the relationship between chromosomal defects, tumorigenesis and malignancies. In 1890, Hansemann observed asymmetrical nuclear divisions in human epithelial cancers. In these abnormal, but bipolar, divisions, a fraction of the chromosomes fails to segregate properly. Hansemann carefully documented the occurrence of asymmetric divisions in a wide variety of tumors. However, he remained a lifelong skeptic with regard to whether such events could be considered the underlying cause of tumors. Almost a quarter of a century after Hansemann's initial observations, Boveri considered the origin of tumors based on his earlier recognition of the functional specificity of each chromosome. He also explicitly drew on Hansemann's observations in proposing a model for tumorigenesis. Its central tenet was that a tumor typically originates from a single cell that has inherited a defined, but incorrectly combined, set of chromosomes. The rare occurrence of a pluripolar spindle represented Boveri's paradigm for a type of abnormal mitosis that can produce a host of random chromosomal combinations. He suggested that some of these combinations will induce tumorous transformation, and will inevitably arise occasionally. Since pluripolar and unbalanced bipolar divisions fail to distribute the hereditary chromatic material correctly, both of these mechanisms can give rise to tumor progenitors.     

Reappraisal of the Hansemann-Boveri hypothesis on the origin of tumors

Cancer is now known to be a genetic disease. In tumor development, cell nuclei undergo mutations, which can result in cytologically visible chromosome aberrations. The aneuploid errors may involve amplification or deletion of whole chromosomes or segments thereof. David Hansemann [1858-1920] and Theodor Boveri [1862-1915] were major contributors to early debates on the relationship between chromosomal defects, tumorigenesis and malignancies. In 1890, Hansemann observed asymmetrical nuclear divisions in human epithelial cancers. In these abnormal, but bipolar, divisions, a fraction of the chromosomes fails to segregate properly. Hansemann carefully documented the occurrence of asymmetric divisions in a wide variety of tumors. However, he remained a lifelong skeptic with regard to whether such events could be considered the underlying cause of tumors. Almost a quarter of a century after Hansemann's initial observations, Boveri considered the origin of tumors based on his earlier recognition of the functional specificity of each chromosome. He also explicitly drew on Hansemann's observations in proposing a model for tumorigenesis. Its central tenet was that a tumor typically originates from a single cell that has inherited a defined, but incorrectly combined, set of chromosomes. The rare occurrence of a pluripolar spindle represented Boveri's paradigm for a type of abnormal mitosis that can produce a host of random chromosomal combinations. He suggested that some of these combinations will induce tumorous transformation, and will inevitably arise occasionally. Since pluripolar and unbalanced bipolar divisions fail to distribute the hereditary chromatic material correctly, both of these mechanisms can give rise to tumor progenitors.     

Rise, fall and resurrection of chromosome territories: a historical perspective. Part II. Fall and resurrection of chromosome territories during the 1950s to 1980s. Part III. Chromosome territories and the functional nuclear architecture: experiments and models from the 1990s to the present

Part II of this historical review on the progress of nuclear architecture studies points out why the original hypothesis of chromosome territories from Carl Rabl and Theodor Boveri (described in part I) was abandoned during the 1950s and finally proven by compelling evidence forwarded by laser-uv-microbeam studies and in situ hybridization experiments. Part II also includes a section on the development of advanced light microscopic techniques breaking the classical Abbe limit written for readers with little knowledge about the present state of the theory of light microscopic resolution. These developments have made it possible to perform 3D distance measurements between genes or other specifically stained, nuclear structures with high precision at the nanometer scale. Moreover, it has become possible to record full images from fluorescent structures and perform quantitative measurements of their shapes and volumes at a level of resolution that until recently could only be achieved by electron microscopy. In part III we review the development of experiments and models of nuclear architecture since the 1990s. Emphasis is laid on the still strongly conflicting views about the basic principles of higher order chromatin organization. A concluding section explains what needs to be done to resolve these conflicts and to come closer to the final goal of all studies of the nuclear architecture, namely to understand the implications of nuclear architecture for nuclear functions.     

Historical roots of centrosome research: discovery of Boveri's microscope slides in Würzburg

Boveri''s visionary monograph ‘Ueber die Natur der Centrosomen’ (On the nature of centrosomes) in 1900 was founded primarily on microscopic observations of cleaving eggs of sea urchins and the roundworm parasite Ascaris. As Boveri wrote in the introductory paragraph, his interests were less about morphological aspects of centrosomes, but rather aimed at an understanding of their physiological role during cell division. The remarkable transition from observations of tiny dot-like structures in fixed and sectioned material to a unified theory of centrosome function (which in essence still holds true today) cannot be fully appreciated without examining Boveri''s starting material, the histological specimens. It was generally assumed that the microscope slides were lost during the bombing of the Zoological Institute in Würzburg at the end of WWII. Here, I describe the discovery of a number of Boveri''s original microscope slides with serial sections of early sea urchin and Ascaris embryos, stained by Heidenhain''s iron haematoxylin method. Some slides bear handwritten notes and sketches by Boveri. Evidence is presented that the newly discovered slides are part of the original material used by Boveri for his seminal centrosome monograph.     

On the origin of the term "stem cell"

Stem cells have fascinated both biologists and clinicians for over a century. Here, we discuss the origin of the term "stem cell," which can be traced back to the late 19th century. The term stem cell originated in the context of two major embryological questions of that time: the continuity of the germ-plasm and the origin of the hematopoietic system. Theodor Boveri and Valentin H?cker used the term stem cell to describe cells committed to give rise to the germline. In parallel, Artur Pappenheim, Alexander Maximow, Ernst Neumann, and others used it to describe a proposed progenitor of the blood system. The original meanings of the term stem cell, rather than being historical relics, continue to capture important aspects of the biology of stem cells as we see them today.     

Critical Notice: Cycles of Contingency – Developmental Systems and Evolution

The themes, problems and challenges of developmental systems theory as described in Cycles of Contingency are discussed. We argue in favor of a robust approach to philosophical and scientific problems of extended heredity and the integration of behavior, development, inheritance, and evolution. Problems with Sterelny's proposal to evaluate inheritance systems using his `Hoyle criteria' are discussed and critically evaluated. Additional support for a developmental systems perspective is sought in evolutionary studies of performance and behavior modulation of fitness.     

The reactions on Hugo de Vries's Intracellular pangenesis: the discussion with August Weismann

In 1889 Hugo de Vries published Intracellular Pangenesis in which heformulated his ideas on heredity. The highexpectations of the impression these ideaswould make did not come true and publicationwas negated or reviewed critically. From thereactions of his Dutch colleagues and thediscussion with the famous German zoologistAugust Weismann we conclude that the assertionthat each cell contains all hereditary materialwas controversial and even more the claim thatcharacters are inherited independently of eachother. De Vries felt that he had to convincehis colleagues of the validity of his theory byproviding experimental evidence. He establishedan important research program which resulted inthe rediscovery of Mendel's laws and thepublication of The Mutation Theory.This article also illustrates somephenomena that go beyond an interesting episodein the development of theories of heredity. Itshows that criticism from colleagues can move aresearcher so deeply that he feels compelled toset up an extensive research program. Moreoverit illustrates that it is not unusual that acreative scientist is only partially willing totake criticism on his theories into account.Last but not least it demonstrates that commonopinion on the validity of specific argumentsmay change in the course of time.     

Fisher's contributions to genetics and heredity, with special emphasis on the Gregor Mendel controversy

R. A. Fisher is widely respected for his contributions to both statistics and genetics. For instance, his 1930 text on The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection remains a watershed contribution in that area. Fisher's subsequent research led him to study the work of (Johann) Gregor Mendel, the 19th century monk who first developed the basic principles of heredity with experiments on garden peas. In examining Mendel's original 1865 article, Fisher noted that the conformity between Mendel's reported and proposed (theoretical) ratios of segregating individuals was unusually good, "too good" perhaps. The resulting controversy as to whether Mendel "cooked" his data for presentation has continued to the current day. This review highlights Fisher's most salient points as regards Mendel's "too good" fit, within the context of Fisher's extensive contributions to the development of genetical and evolutionary theory.     

Darwin’s contributions to genetics

Darwin’s contributions to evolutionary biology are well known, but his contributions to genetics are much less known. His main contribution was the collection of a tremendous amount of genetic data, and an attempt to provide a theoretical framework for its interpretation. Darwin clearly described almost all genetic phenomena of fundamental importance, such as prepotency (Mendelian inheritance), bud variation (mutation), heterosis, reversion (atavism), graft hybridization (Michurinian inheritance), sex-limited inheritance, the direct action of the male element on the female (xenia and telegony), the effect of use and disuse, the inheritance of acquired characters (Lamarckian inheritance), and many other observations pertaining to variation, heredity and development. To explain all these observations, Darwin formulated a developmental theory of heredity — Pangenesis — which not only greatly influenced many subsequent theories, but also is supported by recent evidence.     

The History of Staining the Development of Cytological Staining

Perhaps no other period has contributed more to our knowledge of the cell than the period 1875-1895. During these years most fundamental cytological phenomena were seen and described. Mitosis, maturation and fertilization, the great cornerstones of cytology, were firmly laid by the remarkable researches of Flemming, Strasburger, Van Beneden, Oscar and Richard Hertwig, Boveri and many others. Upon these researches experimental cytology developed and the significance of the morphological phenomena to inheritance and development was pointed out by such masters as W. Roux, Weismann, O. Hertwig, Boveri and E. B. Wilson.     

The History of Staining the Development of Cytological Staining

Perhaps no other period has contributed more to our knowledge of the cell than the period 1875-1895. During these years most fundamental cytological phenomena were seen and described. Mitosis, maturation and fertilization, the great cornerstones of cytology, were firmly laid by the remarkable researches of Flemming, Strasburger, Van Beneden, Oscar and Richard Hertwig, Boveri and many others. Upon these researches experimental cytology developed and the significance of the morphological phenomena to inheritance and development was pointed out by such masters as W. Roux, Weismann, O. Hertwig, Boveri and E. B. Wilson.