ArticleDose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society
"Bad Luck Mutations": DNA Mutations Are not the Whole Answer to Understanding Cancer Risk.
Article in Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Carcinogenesis: Failure of resolution of inflammation?Pharmacology & therapeutics · 2021Review
- Evidence for immortality and autonomy in animal cancer models is often not provided, which causes confusion on key issues of cancer biology.Journal of Cancer · 2020Review
- Redox Paradox: A Novel Approach to Therapeutics-Resistant Cancer.Antioxidants & redox signaling · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It has been proposed that many human cancers are generated by intrinsic mechanisms that produce "Bad Luck" mutations by the proliferation of organ-specific adult stem cells. There have been serious challenges to this interpretation, including multiple extrinsic factors thought to be correlated with mutations found in cancers associated with these exposures. While support for both interpretations provides some validity, both interpretations ignore several concepts of the multistage, multimechanism process of carcinogenesis, namely, (1) mutations can be generated by both "errors of DNA repair" and "errors of DNA replication," during the "initiation" process of carcinogenesis; (2) "initiated" stem cells must be clonally amplified by nonmutagenic, intrinsic or extrinsic epigenetic mechanisms; (3) organ-specific stem cell numbers can be modified during in utero development, thereby altering the risk to cancer later in life; and (4) epigenetic tumor promoters are characterized by species, individual genetic-, gender-, developmental state-specificities, and threshold levels to be active; sustained and long-term exposures; and exposures in the absence of antioxidant "antipromoters." Because of the inevitability of some of the stem cells generating "initiating" mutations by either "errors of DNA repair" or "errors of DNA replication," a tumor is formed depending on the promotion phase of carcinogenesis. While it is possible to reduce our frequencies of mutagenic "initiated" cells, one can never reduce it to zero. Because of the extended period of the promotion phase of carcinogenesis, strategies to reduce the appearance of cancers must involve the interruption of the promotion of these initiated cells.
Indexed as
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.