In the last decades there has been a growing interest towards the concept of "Quality of Life" (QoL), not only in the bio-medical field, but also in other areas, such as sociology, psychology, economics, philosophy, architecture, journalism, politics, environment, sports, recreation, advertisements. Nevertheless QoL does turn out to be an ambiguous and elusive concept -a precise, clear and shared definition appears to be a long way off. In this article an analysis of how QoL is interpreted and defined in various scientific articles published in the last two decades, is offered. In addition, an illustration of how widespread the use of this concept is in different fields of knowledge, the difficulties in reaching a shared understanding of QoL, the problems involved in stating clearly the construct, and a presentation of some of its conceptualizations, are provided. The importance of subjectivity in the definition of what QoL is, emerges as a key aspect. This personal and subjective dimension could be the starting point for a more thorough and holistic understanding of this concept, in which standardized sets of valid, reliable and evidence-based measures of, e.g., psychological and spiritual dimensions, are encompassed in the person's quality of life evaluation.

This work deals with the particular nature of network-based approach in biology. We will comment about the shift from the consideration of the molecular layer as the definitive place where causative process start to the elucidation of the among elements (at any level of biological organization they are located) interaction network as the main goal of scientific explanation. This shift comes from the intrinsic nature of networks where the properties of a specific node are determined by its position in the entire network (top-down explanation) while the global network characteristics emerge from the nodes wiring pattern (bottom-up explanation). This promotes a “middle-out” paradigm formally identical to the time honored chemical thought holding big promises in the study of biological regulation.

In the last decades there has been a growing interest towards the concept of "Quality of Life" (QoL), not only in the bio-medical field, but also in other areas, such as sociology, psychology, economics, philosophy, architecture, journalism, politics, environment, sports, recreation, advertisements. Nevertheless QoL does turn out to be an ambiguous and elusive concept -a precise, clear and shared definition appears to be a long way off. In this article an analysis of how QoL is interpreted and defined in various scientific articles published in the last two decades, is offered. In addition, an illustration of how widespread the use of this concept is in different fields of knowledge, the difficulties in reaching a shared understanding of QoL, the problems involved in stating clearly the construct, and a presentation of some of its conceptualizations, are provided. The importance of subjectivity in the definition of what QoL is, emerges as a key aspect. This personal and subjective dimension could be the starting point for a more thorough and holistic understanding of this concept, in which standardized sets of valid, reliable and evidence-based measures of, e.g., psychological and spiritual dimensions, are encompassed in the person's quality of life evaluation.

Cancer spread is a dynamical process occurring not only in time but also in space which, for solid tumors at least, can be modeled quantitatively by reaction and diffusion equations with a bistable behavior: tumor cell colonization happens in a portion of tissue and propagates, but in some cases the process is stopped. Such a cancer proliferation/extintion dynamics is obtained in many mathematical models as a limit of complicated interacting biological fields. In this article we present a very basic model of cancer proliferation adopting thebistableequation for a single tumor cell dynamics. The reaction-diffusion theory is numerically and analytically studied and then extended in order to take into account dispersal effects in cancer progression in analogy with ecological models based on the porous medium equation. Possible implications of this approach for explanation and prediction of tumor development on the lines of existing studies on brain cancer progression are discussed. The potential role of continuum models in connecting the two predominant interpretative theories about cancer, once formalized in appropriate mathematical terms, is discussed.

No abstract

Germline mutations in APC tumor suppressor gene are responsible for familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP). A major role of these genetic changes is the constitutive activation of ␤-catenin-Tcf-4 mediated transcription of nuclear target genes, but other cellular functions can be misregulated. To assess how different APC mutations can drive the early steps of colonic tumorigenesis, we studied the effect of 10 different germline-truncating alterations on the phenotype of the corresponding adenomas. A significant reduction of apoptosis, uncoupled with an increased c-myc and cyclin-D1 expression, was seen with a frameshift mutation on codon 1383, in the 20-aa repeats of the ␤-catenin degradation domain, independent of a somatic alteration on the wildtype allele. The decreased apoptotic level was associated with a higher incidence of cancerization. No other APC mutation was linked with a similar effect, even in presence of a somatic allelic loss. These findings suggest that mutations in critical sites of the ␤-catenin degradation domain of APC gene can convey a selective advantage to the colonic neoplastic clones by altering the apoptotic surveillance rather than enhancing the ␤-catenin-Tcf-4 transcription of growth-promoting genes.

In the last decade, Systems Biology has emerged as a conceptual and explanatory alternative to reductionist-based approaches in molecular biology. However, the foundations of this new discipline need to be fleshed out more carefully. In this paper, we claim that a relational ontology is a necessary tool to ground both the conceptual and explanatory aspects of Systems Biology. A relational ontology holds that relations are prior-both conceptually and explanatory-to entities, and that in the biological realm entities are defined primarily by the context they are embedded within-and hence by the web of relations they are part of.

The fall of reductionist approaches to explanation leaves biology with an unescapable challenge: how to decipher complex systems. This entails a number of very critical questions, the most basic ones being: “What do we mean by ‘complex’?” and “What is the system we should look for?” In complex systems, constraints belong to a higher level that the molecular one and their effect reduces and constrains the manifold of the accessible internal states of the system itself. Function is related but not deterministically imposed by the underlying structure. It is quite unlikely that such kind of complexity could be grasped by current approaches focusing on a single organization scale. The natural co-emergence of systems, parts and properties can be adopted as a hypothesis-free conceptual framework to understand functional integration of organisms, including their hierarchical or multilevel patterns, and including the way scientific practice proceeds in approaching such complexity. External, “driving” factors – order parameters and control parameters provided by the surrounding microenvironment – are always required to “push” the components’ fate into well-defined developmental directions. In the negative, we see that in pathological processes such as cancer, organizational fluidity, collapse of levels and dynamic heterogeneity make it hard to even find a level of observation for a stable explanandum to persist in scientific practice. Parts and the system both lose their properties once the system is destabilized. The mesoscopic approach is our proposal to conceptualizing, investigating and explaining in biology. “Mesoscopic way of thinking” is increasingly popular in the epistemology of biology and corresponds to looking for an explanation (and possibly a prediction) where “non-trivial determinism is maximal”: the “most microscopic” level of organization is not necessarily the place where “the most relevant facts do happen.” A fundamental re-thinking of the concept of causality is also due for order parameters to be carefully and correctly identified. In the biological realm, entities have relational properties only, as they depend ontologically on the context they happen to be in. The basic idea of a relational ontology is that, in our inventory of the world, relations are somehow prior to the relata (i.e., entities).