Literature DB >> 19826429

The mysterious steps in carcinogenesis: addendum.

D Brash, J Cairns.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19826429      PMCID: PMC2768438          DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605332

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


× No keyword cloud information.
Sir, In the past 100 years, many explanations have been proposed for the process of carcinogenesis but none of them has proved to be totally persuasive. For this reason, we deliberately did not offer a modern synthesis in our review article (Brash and Cairns, 2009). However, in the last few years, thanks to certain experiments, a possible interpretation has emerged, which could be of practical importance. We now see that all cells (bacterial, yeast and mammalian cells) are more far-sighted than we had imagined. Confronted by stressful or damaging changes in their environment, populations of cells activate a programme that raises their mutation rate for several generations but temporarily masks the mutant phenotypes. This greatly increases the likelihood that some of them will be able to flourish in the new environment. Two important observations suggest that induction of this ‘stress response’ might be the crucial initiating event in cancer. (1) When cells are exposed to chemical or physical initiators in vitro, every cell can be initiated so that it yields transformed descendants, which implies that initiation is the long-term activation of a programme rather than the production of mutations in certain genes (Kennedy ). (2) Inactivation of one of the genes involved in the stress response protects mice against various experimental cancers (Dai ). If the formation of most cancers is initiated by activation of a programme that depends on the interplay of several gene products, then defects in some of these products (although evolutionarily deleterious) might prevent most cancers; therefore, it may be useful to look for polymorphisms that protect against cancer rather than, as has become usual these days, concentrate solely on those that increase the risk. This could not easily be done with humans (whose lifetime risk of cancer is only about 50%), but could be done with mice. Even within inbred strains, mice are known to vary in susceptibility to skin cancer, and only a few generations of selective breeding can produce mice that are largely insusceptible (Boutwell, 1964). So the project would be to look for the genetic changes that accompany such selection and then, if found, study the frequency of changes in the equivalent human genes in relation to the risk of cancer, using the DNA samples that have already been collected for the many studies of genetic susceptibility.
  4 in total

Review 1.  SOME BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF SKIN CARCINOGENISIS.

Authors:  R K BOUTWELL
Journal:  Prog Exp Tumor Res       Date:  1964

2.  Timing of the steps in transformation of C3H 10T 1/2 cells by X-irradiation.

Authors:  A R Kennedy; J Cairns; J B Little
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1984 Jan 5-11       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  The mysterious steps in carcinogenesis.

Authors:  D Brash; J Cairns
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2009-08-04       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Heat shock factor 1 is a powerful multifaceted modifier of carcinogenesis.

Authors:  Chengkai Dai; Luke Whitesell; Arlin B Rogers; Susan Lindquist
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2007-09-21       Impact factor: 41.582

  4 in total
  6 in total

Review 1.  Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: the challenge ahead.

Authors:  William H Goodson; Leroy Lowe; David O Carpenter; Michael Gilbertson; Abdul Manaf Ali; Adela Lopez de Cerain Salsamendi; Ahmed Lasfar; Amancio Carnero; Amaya Azqueta; Amedeo Amedei; Amelia K Charles; Andrew R Collins; Andrew Ward; Anna C Salzberg; Annamaria Colacci; Ann-Karin Olsen; Arthur Berg; Barry J Barclay; Binhua P Zhou; Carmen Blanco-Aparicio; Carolyn J Baglole; Chenfang Dong; Chiara Mondello; Chia-Wen Hsu; Christian C Naus; Clement Yedjou; Colleen S Curran; Dale W Laird; Daniel C Koch; Danielle J Carlin; Dean W Felsher; Debasish Roy; Dustin G Brown; Edward Ratovitski; Elizabeth P Ryan; Emanuela Corsini; Emilio Rojas; Eun-Yi Moon; Ezio Laconi; Fabio Marongiu; Fahd Al-Mulla; Ferdinando Chiaradonna; Firouz Darroudi; Francis L Martin; Frederik J Van Schooten; Gary S Goldberg; Gerard Wagemaker; Gladys N Nangami; Gloria M Calaf; Graeme Williams; Gregory T Wolf; Gudrun Koppen; Gunnar Brunborg; H Kim Lyerly; Harini Krishnan; Hasiah Ab Hamid; Hemad Yasaei; Hideko Sone; Hiroshi Kondoh; Hosni K Salem; Hsue-Yin Hsu; Hyun Ho Park; Igor Koturbash; Isabelle R Miousse; A Ivana Scovassi; James E Klaunig; Jan Vondráček; Jayadev Raju; Jesse Roman; John Pierce Wise; Jonathan R Whitfield; Jordan Woodrick; Joseph A Christopher; Josiah Ochieng; Juan Fernando Martinez-Leal; Judith Weisz; Julia Kravchenko; Jun Sun; Kalan R Prudhomme; Kannan Badri Narayanan; Karine A Cohen-Solal; Kim Moorwood; Laetitia Gonzalez; Laura Soucek; Le Jian; Leandro S D'Abronzo; Liang-Tzung Lin; Lin Li; Linda Gulliver; Lisa J McCawley; Lorenzo Memeo; Louis Vermeulen; Luc Leyns; Luoping Zhang; Mahara Valverde; Mahin Khatami; Maria Fiammetta Romano; Marion Chapellier; Marc A Williams; Mark Wade; Masoud H Manjili; Matilde E Lleonart; Menghang Xia; Michael J Gonzalez; Michalis V Karamouzis; Micheline Kirsch-Volders; Monica Vaccari; Nancy B Kuemmerle; Neetu Singh; Nichola Cruickshanks; Nicole Kleinstreuer; Nik van Larebeke; Nuzhat Ahmed; Olugbemiga Ogunkua; P K Krishnakumar; Pankaj Vadgama; Paola A Marignani; Paramita M Ghosh; Patricia Ostrosky-Wegman; Patricia A Thompson; Paul Dent; Petr Heneberg; Philippa Darbre; Po Sing Leung; Pratima Nangia-Makker; Qiang Shawn Cheng; R Brooks Robey; Rabeah Al-Temaimi; Rabindra Roy; Rafaela Andrade-Vieira; Ranjeet K Sinha; Rekha Mehta; Renza Vento; Riccardo Di Fiore; Richard Ponce-Cusi; Rita Dornetshuber-Fleiss; Rita Nahta; Robert C Castellino; Roberta Palorini; Roslida Abd Hamid; Sabine A S Langie; Sakina E Eltom; Samira A Brooks; Sandra Ryeom; Sandra S Wise; Sarah N Bay; Shelley A Harris; Silvana Papagerakis; Simona Romano; Sofia Pavanello; Staffan Eriksson; Stefano Forte; Stephanie C Casey; Sudjit Luanpitpong; Tae-Jin Lee; Takemi Otsuki; Tao Chen; Thierry Massfelder; Thomas Sanderson; Tiziana Guarnieri; Tove Hultman; Valérian Dormoy; Valerie Odero-Marah; Venkata Sabbisetti; Veronique Maguer-Satta; W Kimryn Rathmell; Wilhelm Engström; William K Decker; William H Bisson; Yon Rojanasakul; Yunus Luqmani; Zhenbang Chen; Zhiwei Hu
Journal:  Carcinogenesis       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.944

Review 2.  Chronic low dose UV exposure and p53 mutation: tilting the odds in early epidermal preneoplasia?

Authors:  Amit Roshan; Philip H Jones
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2012-08-23       Impact factor: 2.694

Review 3.  Is cancer a disease set up by cellular stress responses?

Authors:  Armando Aranda-Anzaldo; Myrna A R Dent
Journal:  Cell Stress Chaperones       Date:  2021-05-24       Impact factor: 3.667

Review 4.  Evidence for immortality and autonomy in animal cancer models is often not provided, which causes confusion on key issues of cancer biology.

Authors:  Xixi Dou; Pingzhen Tong; Hai Huang; Lucas Zellmer; Yan He; Qingwen Jia; Daizhou Zhang; Jiang Peng; Chenguang Wang; Ningzhi Xu; Dezhong Joshua Liao
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2020-03-04       Impact factor: 4.207

Review 5.  Phenotypic Heterogeneity in Tumor Progression, and Its Possible Role in the Onset of Cancer.

Authors:  Saniya Deshmukh; Supreet Saini
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2020-11-30       Impact factor: 4.599

Review 6.  Mutation or not, what directly establishes a neoplastic state, namely cellular immortality and autonomy, still remains unknown and should be prioritized in our research.

Authors:  Shengming Zhu; Jiangang Wang; Lucas Zellmer; Ningzhi Xu; Mei Liu; Yun Hu; Hong Ma; Fei Deng; Wenxiu Yang; Dezhong Joshua Liao
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2022-07-04       Impact factor: 4.478

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.