Another topic in this forum has piqued my interest that lead me to writing this topic. The following is what I posted there.

They're were two studies in that topic. I include them here for your review, as my response directly quoted the study and analysis of that study.

The study : http://oncology.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2319235

The analysis of that study: http://www.medpagetoday.com/Endocrinology/Obesity/52103

"I'm going to attempt  to raise a different perspective on weight. 

The BMI's at baseline were identified. The gain over the study period was identified i.e > 5%. The loss over the period of the study i.e. >5% was identified.

 What was not identified in either the study or the analysis was what the overweight and obesity history was in time relationship prior to the inclusion in the study or time prior to the development to cancer. It was identified as linear meaning that it was a direct line. But I'm suggesting that the length of time to cancer is important to the weight gain.  Why is this important? I have now had two primary cancers. With each one I had a stable weight. Both BMI's were in the overweight range. Then there was a sudden weight gain that did not correspond to change in diet or activity. It was a frustrating time before each one b/c I couldn't explain what was happening. With the second cancer I was suspicious b/c of what happened with the first cancer.

The first cancer was BC. The second primary cancer was Thyroid. Weight gain can be commonly associated with thyroid dysfunction.  The weight gain started in Nov/Dec 2012 and rapidly moved up. TSH was normal. Docs denied there could be a thyroid problem. May 2013, a goiter was found during yearly CT. I said "SEE". Follow-up TSH and thyroid bx didn't identify any abnormality. Jan 2014, I said we need some basic blood work.  I requested autoantibodies test along with the TSH, T3, and T4.

The auto antibodies test: Thyroglobulin was 52(normal range 0-30)  and antibodies were normal. Indicative of cancer. (long story very shortened). Thyroid came out. Thyroglobulin drawn day after thyroid removal was 109. Pathology was negative. From the day of receiving the results of the original autoantibodies value, I insisted I had cancer. With the pathology report being negative and my belief I had cancer, my surgeon went behind the scene and insisted that a second opinion be obtained on the pathology. Quest labs found cancer in both lobes. The original pathologist admitted after doing a relook at original bx done in July 2013 and slides from thyroidectomy in Feb 2014 that cancer was present in both samples.

What was common to the two cancers was a sudden unexplained weight gain prior to each cancer diagnosis. Needless to say if they're is another sudden unexplained weight gain I'll be even more pushy than I was after the last one.

We know cancers can be present for a long period in the body before they are manifested. In reference to the study and analysis, does my observation of a sudden weight change have any signaling of cancer developing to point that it can be diagnosed by imaging or labs? For this question to be answered, they're would need to be another study done to look at that specifically. I doubt they could do a relook by meta-analysis at this study b/c it doesn't appear that was included in the specific data inclusion at the beginning of the study.

Interesting?

 In following the breadcrumb trail of obesity and how it relates to breast cancer, I've been studying Microbiota. From Wiki the definition of microbiota is  "the ecological community of commensal, symbiotic and pathogenic microorganisms that literally share our body space". ^{The science has explored some specific areas and is proceeding to expand into other areas as discoveries are made. A connection has been established between microbiota and obesity, but it is only beginning  with much research to be done.}

^{This link is to Wiki. Wiki has gathered the central ideas related to microbiota. Studying this will give us a basic framework to understand the definitions, and focus of the projects related to the microbiome.}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbiota

This link is to a study of the "Obesity and the Human Microbiome". Studying this will give us the basic understanding of the connection between obesity and  the bodies microbiome

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/714569

This link is to a study of the " Emerging Roles of Microbiota". The study discusses the relationship of microbiota and specific diseases and cancers.

http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/249.full#T1

 I have not found any articles yet directly related to any microbiota research related to breast cancer. We are all aware of continued publications linking breast cancer to obesity. I can make the following statement :If obesity has been shown to be related to microbiota and obesity is a risk factor in the development of BC, then hypothetically they're is a relationship between microbiota and BC until a definitive study that either proves or disproves a relationship.

Okay now done, this should stir things up sassy

kayb. I was into the dashboard to send you a Pm to come visit here and got sidetracked. Thank you so much for bringing that article. I haven't got into it yet....b/c your comment about the bacteria being present in stage 1 and then in decreasing amounts as the stage increased. Is very interesting...........I'll read and get back to you. This is beginning study for me, so it'll take awhile to get a solid handle.

Okay kayb. this is so cool.

From abstract :"Taken together, these data indicate that microbial DNA is present in the breast and that bacteria or their components may influence the local immune microenvironment. Our findings suggest a previously unrecognized link between dysbiosis and breast cancer which has potential diagnostic and therapeutic implications."

My statement (from my post before kayb's post): " I can make the following statement :If obesity has been shown to be related to microbiota and obesity is a risk factor in the development of BC, then hypothetically they're is a relationship between microbiota and BC until a definitive study that either proves or disproves a relationship."

kayb, shucks, I done good on hypothesizing. The science is already started to make a link. The next step is doing a study re. microbiota & weight & BC. Started thinking parameters of the study. But getting close to brain dead. Entirely pleased with how this is progressing. Long way in a short time.

This was in the results section of the breast study on the Plos page:

"Interestingly, there was a strong inverse correlation between the abundance of S. yanoikuyae and M. radiotolerans in paired normal tissue (Figure 1e top panel, p = 0.0003) which was not found in the corresponding tumor tissue (Figure 1e bottom panel). These data suggest that in paired normal tissue, S. yanoikuyae and M. radiotolerans may occupy similar niches and thus counterbalance each other in abundance. Meanwhile in tumor tissue, the quantity of S. yanoikuyae becomes significantly lower as the quantity of M. radiotolerans remains constant."

--------------------------------------------

MY Comment: I like S.yanoikuyae.

From Wiki. This is the description from Wiki. It will be used as a reference as we learn about the impact on the Microbiome  of external things that can upset the human microbiome environment.

Importance of aromatic compounds[edit]

Aromatic compounds play key roles in the biochemistry of all living things. The four aromatic amino acids histidine, phenylalanine, tryptophan, and tyrosine each serve as one of the 20 basic building-blocks of proteins. Further, all 5 nucleotides (adenine, thymine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil) that make up the sequence of the genetic code in DNA and RNA are aromatic purines or pyrimidines. The molecule heme contains an aromatic system with 22 π electrons. Chlorophyll also has a similar aromatic system.

Aromatic compounds are important in industry. Key aromatic hydrocarbons of commercial interest are benzene, toluene, ortho-xylene and para-xylene. About 35 million tonnes are produced worldwide every year. They are extracted from complex mixtures obtained by the refining of oil or by distillation of coal tar, and are used to produce a range of important chemicals and polymers, including styrene, phenol, aniline, polyester and nylon.

For those that haven't used google to do extensive searches. What happens the longer the search goes on the google gremlins are working. They will continue to work. If I return to the same topic and keywords tomorrow or next week more hits will come up. This following link is to an immensely readable article, that encompasses allot said here today. It would have been nice to have it pop early, but that is fine now. There is a statement at the end in reference to bacteria that "Perhaps the most important revelation is the discovery of a possible new means to prevent breast cancer altogether".  Cool.

http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/under-microscope/link-between-breasts-cancer-and-germs

 

Work in progress

The information on the internet is vast re: Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) and Bacteria/ fungi that "eat" PAH's. Going to attempt to describe why they are important to this discussion." Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are a group of more than 100 different chemicals that are released from burning coal, oil, gasoline, trash, tobacco, wood, or other organic substances such as charcoal-broiled meat". (free internet dictionary). Initially the reading was driving me towards looking at individual PAH's, but I've determined that would make us crazy. People get degrees up to PhD level. What we want to know is how they relate to each other in our body

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

This section is a brief overview of PAH's. Don't commit it to memory. The need to know is PAH's exist and they cause harm to the body. It's completely plagiarized from the internet.

PAH's can be incorporated into the body through absorption through the skin, respiration, and ingestion.

PAH's In genetics, a mutagen is a physical or chemical agent that changes the genetic material, usually DNA, of an organism and thus increases the frequency of mutations above the natural background level. As many mutations can cause cancer, mutagens are therefore also likely to be carcinogens. The most significant endpoint of PAH toxicity is cancer.

PAHs generally have a low degree of acute toxicity to humans.
The most significant endpoint of PAH toxicity is cancer.
Increased incidences of lung, skin, and bladder cancers are associated with
occupational exposure to PAHs. Data for other sites is much less persuasive.
It is difficult to ascribe observed health effects in epidemiological
studies to specific PAHs because most exposures are to PAH mixtures.
Animal studies show that certain PAHs affect the hematopoietic, immune,
reproductive, and neurologic systems and cause developmental effects. http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=13&po=11

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

This section defines the way bacteria degrade or remediate aromatics and PAH's. It's here only to allow us to get to our endpoint. The need to know info is that bacteria can take in these substances>>metabolise them>>then expel the metabolites that are harmless. It's completely plagiarized from the internet

Protoemics and Metabolomics in Understanding of Bacterial Degradation of PAHs

Proteomics and metabolomics have been recently employed in studies of environmental microbiology and have shown their high impact on the field of biodegradation and bioremediation [158, 159]. Proteomics is an effective technique to identify proteins and their functions involved in the biodegradation of aromatics while metabolomics can be used to profile degradation products of PAHs and primary metabolites in response to PAH exposures. Intent of a brief discussion of proteomics and metabolomics here is to bring attention to these emerging fields rather than offering a comprehensive review and a long list of references.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672333/

________________________________________________________________

 This section identifies a link to research publish in 2011. The research identifies that human tissue has been analyzed for the presence of PAH. The need to know is that tissues have been studied for the presence of PAH's.

 Human exposure to PAHs occurs by inhalation, ingestion and topical absorption, and subsequently formed metabolites are either rendered hydrophilic and excreted, or bioactivated and bound to cellular macromolecules. The formation of PAH-DNA adducts (DNA binding products), considered a necessary step in PAH-initiated carcinogenesis, has been widely studied in experimental models and has been documented in human tissues This study include tissue from esophagus, prostate, human placenta, cervix, and vulva. Other studies have cover the oral mucosa, liver, and breast.

 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3155323/

These two studies were referenced in the above study

Breast study evaluating smokers and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12727801

breast study evaluating char cooked meats

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14504191

________________________________________________________

This section identifies a a study published in 2014 on the "Microbial Dysbiosis Is Associated with Human Breast Cancer". This study was previously identified above. This article lead us on the quest to know more about the microbiome. The need to know is that breast tissue has been studied for the presence of bacteria.

 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0083744

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This study published in 2013, identifies the risk factors for the development of breast cancer. The bolded area is my emphasis. The need to know is that the identified risk factors are the current factors accepted by science and doctors as causative to Breast cancer

Introduction:Breast cancer is the most common cancer worldwide, and the second leading cause of cancer death.¹ One in nine women in the UK and USA will develop the disease in their lifetimes.¹ It is more common in the Western countries than in Africa, South America or Asia, and several aetiological factors have been implicated in its pathogenesis.²These causative factors include age, genetics, family history, diet, alcohol, obesity, lifestyle, physical inactivity, as well as endocrine factors (both endogenous and exogenous).³ Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) has recently been identified in certain sub-groups of patients, and has a higher recurrence rate, faster growth and poorer prognosis.⁴ Other associated factors for breast cancer are mammographic density⁵ and previous benign disease.⁶ However, it is still not very clear which of the factors has any predominant role (s) over others, in the pathogenesis of breast cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3948957/

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion is my analysis:  This search has rocked my world a bit, but it doesn't surprise me. The accepted risk factors have been promulgated for years. We all have been made aware of them time after time. Much of the time we have been made to feel that we are the cause of our cancer. How many studies have we read that support the party line by looking at the same factors without identifying anything new. Well that's all changed. For anyone following all the breadcrumbs from the beginning we have identified our bodies are subject to and incorporate PAH's from the air we breathe, the food we eat, and products applied to our skin. That the PAH's have been identified by well applied science to exist in our tissue's. Further, we have one study that identifies S. yanoikuyae  as being part of the microbiome of the breast without explanation as to why. S. yanoikuyae is part of a group of bacteria/fungi called proteomics and metabolomics. These bacteria/fungi are used in industry to biodegrade and bioremediate PAH presence, but at least one of these has been found as a resident bacteria in our breast.  No study to date on tissues(unless I've missed it) has identified PAH"s, proteomics and metabolomics bacteria /fungi within the same tissues.

I believe the research needs to identify all proteomics and metabolomics in study of human tissue. That concurrent analysis of the presence of PAH's be done in these same tissues. I think in the end what we will find that we have developed a symbiotic relationship with bacteria and fungi that protects us from PAH's. A couple of questions have come to mind.  Is there and end point that the symbiotic bacteria are overwhelmed and can no longer prevent disease? If this be true than we can develop strategies for the use of proteomics and metabolomics in the treatment of cancer? Why not the prevention of cancer?

In looking at the bacteria and fungi that are used for different chemicals for either remediation or degradation, what struck me was the number of bacteria familiar to me from culture reports. These bacteria were seen as harmful to the body treated with antibiotics. What if their presence in a wound was a signal of not infection, but something else. What that something else could be, I don't know. But someone with great knowledge than me could possible surmise. Or maybe as this gels, other thoughts will come forward.

I'm ending here for the moment. The gist of my thoughts are documented here. I will revisit it a thoughts occur.

Okay friends, if you will go back four posts. Let me know what you think? They're have been few posting, but the numbers are large as to lurkers. Several hundred just in about 3 days. To those lurking, I have felt comforted by your presence. I felt you were just as interested as I was to see where this would lead. I overwhelmed my computer. Twice had to shut it down to let it unclog it's memory. Now I'm going to shut down me for awhile and play.

Kayb, I posted this on the research forum just before we got into the microbiome. It is another example of gut flora affecting another distant body area. Thought I'd bring it here since we are looking at this as an organism thing---we are the organism LOL. I asked Cp4 if I could bring her post on weight and Vitamin D. I seriously need to play a little. BBL sassy

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/gut-bacteria-on-the-brain/395918/

When Gut Bacteria Changes Brain Function