When I saw the call for the Université de Sherbrooke’s science popularization contest, I immediately thought of one of my supervisor's latest paper—a theoretical algorithm for comparing tumor cell genomes. But how do you turn a 12-page article into something readable, in just 600 words, with no equations, and one image? That was the challenge.
Here you will find the transformation from my initial brainstorm to the final piece, and the design choices I made along the way. Why I ditched metaphors about family trees, embraced true crime podcasts, and chose clarity over technical detail.
Early on, I knew I didn’t want to use the usual “family tree” metaphor. It’s a common misconception in phylogenetics. I had made that mistake during one of my bachelor's research internshps and I have learnt from it. I decided instead to draw on a metaphor I was passionate about: criminal investigations, inspired by my love of true crime podcasts. This analogy gave me a structure—there's a victim (healthy tissue), a crime (mutation), suspects (cancer cells), and evidence (copy number profiles). In fact when we try to reconstruct the past, the genetic sequences we work with are like static "pictures". It clicked.
I wanted readers to understand what the algorithm does, not how it does it. That meant focusing on the why it matters—to retrace how cancer evolves and maybe, one day, stop it. Using a storytelling structure gave me room to evoke emotion and curiosity while still honoring the complexity of the science behind it.
The idea of evolutionary distance.
The constraints of copy number.
The fact that the algorithm solves a biologically relevant NP-hard problem.
No cost functions no formal notation.
How to represent relationships without needing trees or matrices.
A detective board-style figure to replace a traditional phylogenetic tree.
A concluding message of hope and utility (how this helps fight against cancer)
In the end, I didn’t just write a science story. I designed an experience. Winning the contest was a confidence boost, but more importantly, it taught me how to communicate theory without erasing complexity.
Bonus: I created a comic book version of this work for the EF929 course at the University of Sherbrooke
Cancer, also known as “The silent killer”, is a disease that starts when some of our cells begin
to grow chaotically. Usually, our body decides when and how many cells must be produced.
However, cancer cells want to reproduce themselves indefinitely and our bodies are unable to
stop them. This ruthless production of cells agglomerates into a bulk of cells which we call a
tumor. To understand how a single malignant cell can evolve into a tumor, we use
phylogenetics, a branch of evolutionary biology that studies the relationships between
individuals over time. Finding these relationships is like a crime mystery; where we take a
picture of the crime scene – the DNA of the tumor cells – and use it to infer the events that
happened in the past. To investigate this crime scene Dr. Lafond et.al. proposed
a new
model that recreates this mystery by using the numerical footprints left by the genes of the
involved cells. Using phylogenies to study the mechanisms behind cancer, we can not only
understand, but also predict and perhaps control the progression of cancer and prevent it from
spreading into other parts of the body.
Let’s start with the crime evidence. Every cell in our body carries a certain number of copies
from each gene. This number of copies per gene in a cell is known as Copy Number Profile
(CNP). Since cancer cells reproduce indefinitely, they spawn many offspring cells, each with
their own personality traits. The CNP is one of these traits: the children of a cell might have
more (amplification) or less (deletion) copies of a gene. To measure the similarity between two
cells, we can count the number of mutations required to explain the differences in their CNPs.
Comparing CNPs gives an evolutionary distance between cells, which then can be used to infer
all the evolutionary relationships within the tumor
Traditional cell comparison models assume that each gene undergoes mutations independently.
However, recent evidence shows that amplifications and deletions can affect large blocks of
genes. In this work, a new model - a mathematical representation of the biological problem –
which considers this novel evidence was proposed. The key question in our crime investigation
is: Given two CNPs, namely a source and a target, what was the sequence of events that could
have occurred to transform the source into the target? Moreover, some amplification or deletion
events are more probable than others, so is it possible to find the series of events that represents
the most likely scenario? In this article, it was proved that this problem requires calculations
that are too difficult even for the most sophisticated computers, which is what computer
scientists call an NP-hard problem. However, the authors have developed a new algorithm
named cnp2cnp which is shown to find evolutionary scenarios that are very close to the optimal.
The model was compared against previously used implementations such as MEDICC, which
considers a restricted form of a gene amplification, and the Euclidean distance, which only
considers the absolute differences between gene copy numbers. Since the cnp2cnp model is
closer to the biological reality, it was shown to reconstruct tumor phylogenies with equal or
superior accuracy.
Throughout its development, the silent killer leaves a trace of useful evidence from which we
can retrace and understand its behavior. CNP for example, is a tell-tale piece of evidence that
can help us infer the evolutionary history of a tumor. In particular, the cnp2cnp algorithm
makes it possible to incorporate new helpful biological evidence to recreate the events more
akin to the reality. Adapting current models to more complex phenomena places us one step
ahead of this silent killer, in hope that one day we will be able to finally stop it