Study
Potential mechanisms for cancer resistance in elephants and comparative cellular response to DNA damage in humans
Abegglen, Lisa M.; Caulin, Aleah F.; Chan, Ashley; Maley, Carlo C.; Schiffman, Joshua D.
JAMA, 2015
Zoo and database records of elephant deaths were reviewed to estimate cancer mortality, the elephant genome was examined for copies of the tumour-suppressor gene TP53, and elephant cells were compared with human cells in their response to DNA damage.
- Studied in
- Loxodonta africana, Elephas maximus
- Sample size
- 644 elephant deaths reviewed for cancer mortality, plus cell-line experiments
Estimated cancer mortality in elephants was low relative to their size and lifespan. Elephants carry around twenty copies of TP53 where humans carry one, and their cells were markedly more likely to self-destruct after DNA damage rather than attempt repair.
What it means
The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.
How the authors put it
Additional TP53 copies may underlie elephant cancer resistance by favouring elimination of damaged cells.
How NatureHQ reads it
This is the best-known attempt on Peto's paradox — the puzzle that huge, long-lived animals ought to get far more cancer than they do, and do not. The gene-copy finding is solid; the causal step from extra copies to low cancer rates is supported by the cell work but not established in living animals. Cancer mortality figures come from captive populations, where causes of death are recorded very differently from the wild.
- Cancer mortality estimated from zoo records, which are incomplete and biased.
- Cell-line response is a long way from whole-animal cancer resistance.
- Other mechanisms, including a resurrected pseudogene identified by another group, may contribute.
What this study is used for on NatureHQ
One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.
Published by: JAMA NetworkPublished in a JAMA Network journal.
doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.13134
This reference was resolved automatically against Crossref and OpenAlex on 2026-08-11.
NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-08-09.