ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society2006
Suppression of neoplastic transformation in vitro by low doses of low LET radiation.
Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characterization of relative biological effectiveness for conventional radiation therapy: a comparison of clinical 6 MV X-rays and 137Cs.Journal of radiation research · 2017Article
- X-ray-induced bystander responses reduce spontaneous mutations in V79 cells.Journal of radiation research · 2013Article
- Computational modeling of cellular effects post-irradiation with low- and high-let particles and different absorbed doses.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2013Article
- The new radiobiology: returning to our roots.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2012Article
- Cellular stress responses, mitostress and carnitine insufficiencies as critical determinants in aging and neurodegenerative disorders: role of hormesis and vitagenes.Neurochemical research · 2010Article
- Cellular stress responses, the hormesis paradigm, and vitagenes: novel targets for therapeutic intervention in neurodegenerative disorders.Antioxidants & redox signaling · 2010Review
- A perspective on the scientific, philosophical, and policy dimensions of hormesis.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2009Article
- Non-problematic risks from low-dose radiation-induced DNA damage clusters.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2008Article
- It's time for a new low-dose-radiation risk assessment paradigm--one that acknowledges hormesis.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A major concern of exposure to low doses of radiation is the risk of cancer induction. Epidemiologic data are rarely powerful enough to accurately discriminate this risk at doses <10 cGy. In order to gain insight into events at these low doses, laboratory-based studies of relevant endpoints are required. One such endpoint is radiation-induced neoplastic transformation in vitro. Such studies can provide quantitative dose-response data, as well as insights into underlying cellular and molecular mechanisms. Data are presented that indicate that low doses of low LET radiation can suppress neoplastic transformation in vitro to levels below those seen spontaneously. Mechanisms involved include both the death of a subpopulation of cells prone to spontaneous neoplastic transformation and the induction of DNA repair. The relative contributions of these mechanisms is dose-dependent. The relevance of these observations to radiation risk estimation is discussed.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.