Cancer is increasingly perceived as a systems-level, network phenomenon. The major trend of malignant transformation can be described as a two-phase process, where an initial increase of network plasticity is followed by a decrease of plasticity at l
ate stages of tumor development. The fluctuating intensity of stress factors, like hypoxia, inflammation and the either cooperative or hostile interactions of tumor inter-cellular networks, all increase the adaptation potential of cancer cells. This may lead to the bypass of cellular senescence, and to the development of cancer stem cells. We propose that the central tenet of cancer stem cell definition lies exactly in the indefinability of cancer stem cells. Actual properties of cancer stem cells depend on the individual stress-history of the given tumor. Cancer stem cells are characterized by an extremely large evolvability (i.e. a capacity to generate heritable phenotypic variation), which corresponds well with the defining hallmarks of cancer stem cells: the possession of the capacity to self-renew and to repeatedly re-build the heterogeneous lineages of cancer cells that comprise a tumor in new environments. Cancer stem cells represent a cell population, which is adapted to adapt. We argue that the high evolvability of cancer stem cells is helped by their repeated transitions between plastic (proliferative, symmetrically dividing) and rigid (quiescent, asymmetrically dividing, often more invasive) phenotypes having plastic and rigid networks. Thus, cancer stem cells reverse and replay cancer development multiple times. We describe network models potentially explaining cancer stem cell-like behavior. Finally, we propose novel strategies including combination therapies and multi-target drugs to overcome the Nietzschean dilemma of cancer stem cell targeting: what does not kill me makes me stronger.
Despite considerable progress in genome- and proteome-based high-throughput screening methods and in rational drug design, the increase in approved drugs in the past decade did not match the increase of drug development costs. Network description and
analysis not only give a systems-level understanding of drug action and disease complexity, but can also help to improve the efficiency of drug design. We give a comprehensive assessment of the analytical tools of network topology and dynamics. The state-of-the-art use of chemical similarity, protein structure, protein-protein interaction, signaling, genetic interaction and metabolic networks in the discovery of drug targets is summarized. We propose that network targeting follows two basic strategies. The central hit strategy selectively targets central nodes/edges of the flexible networks of infectious agents or cancer cells to kill them. The network influence strategy works against other diseases, where an efficient reconfiguration of rigid networks needs to be achieved by targeting the neighbors of central nodes or edges. It is shown how network techniques can help in the identification of single-target, edgetic, multi-target and allo-network drug target candidates. We review the recent boom in network methods helping hit identification, lead selection optimizing drug efficacy, as well as minimizing side-effects and drug toxicity. Successful network-based drug development strategies are shown through the examples of infections, cancer, metabolic diseases, neurodegenerative diseases and aging. Summarizing more than 1200 references we suggest an optimized protocol of network-aided drug development, and provide a list of systems-level hallmarks of drug quality. Finally, we highlight network-related drug development trends helping to achieve these hallmarks by a cohesive, global approach.
