New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Redhead Pigment Boosts Skin-Cancer Risk

"Ginger" mice are found to be more susceptible to melanoma even without any exposure to ultraviolet radiation

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

From Nature magazine

Fair-skinned, red-haired folks know — sometimes through painful experience — that they are more susceptible to the damaging effects of the Sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays, including sunburn, skin ageing and a higher risk of skin cancers. But a study published today in Nature suggests that in mice, the pigment responsible for this colouring has a role in the development of melanoma.

“There is something about the redhead genetic background that is behaving in a carcinogenic fashion, independent of UV,” says David Fisher, a cancer biologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, who led the study. “It means that shielding from UV would not be enough.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Compared to people with darker skin, those with fair, freckly skin and red hair produce a different form of the pigment melanin. This red–yellow form, called pheomelanin, is less effective at protecting the skin from UV damage than the darker form, eumelanin. The difference is caused by a mutation in the gene MC1R.

But for a number of years there have been hints that UV exposure alone might not account entirely for the risk of melanoma in redheads. Fisher and his team wanted to investigate the molecular backdrop for this increased risk. 

The researchers looked at how melanomas develop in mouse models of olive-skinned, ginger and albino colouring. The last group had the same genetic background as the dark-skinned mice but lacked the enzyme needed to synthesize melanin. The researchers also tweaked each group’s genes to be more susceptible to developing benign moles, which Fisher says is a probable first step in the development of melanoma.

No sunlight needed
The researchers planned to expose the mice to UV light and monitor differences in melanoma development. But before they got to that part of the experiment, about half the ginger mice had developed melanomas. Fisher says that he and his team were shocked. “The first thing we needed to do was bring a UV meter into the animal room to be sure there wasn’t some inadvertent UV being radiated out of the light bulbs or something,” he says. “And it turned out there was not.”

The result suggested that the pigment itself was a cause of melanoma. The researchers suggest that the increased melanoma risk could have something to do with the pigment-production process, or a by-product of it, in melanin-containing cells called melanocytes.

Eugene Healy, a clinical dermatologist at the University of Southampton, UK, says that although the mechanism is interesting, it is probably a less common trigger of melanoma than UV radiation. Indeed, in the UK, 8 out of 10 cases of melanoma are due to UV exposure. In humans, most melanomas develop on skin that sees the sun. “You almost never see melanoma, for example, on the buttocks,” says Healy.

To complicate the picture, one of Healy’s own studies, published in 2010, suggested that pheomelanin was protective against the effects of UV radiation in another type of skin cell, the keratinocyte.

The sun-safety message does not change because of the latest results. “UV is very tightly and convincingly linked to the formation of most non-melanoma types of skin cancer,” Fisher says. “One of the most important messages from this is to avoid an assumption that this takes UV off the hook.” It is possible that UV exposure worsens the carcinogenic mechanism of the red pigment, he adds.  

Healy is keen to avoid alarming people with fair complexions. “Whatever risk was there, was always there. But we don’t see lots of spontaneous melanomas in redheads. We shouldn’t be sending out a worrying message for them.”

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on November 2, 2012.

First published in 1869, Nature is the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. Nature publishes the finest peer-reviewed research that drives ground-breaking discovery, and is read by thought-leaders and decision-makers around the world.

More by Nature magazine

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe