4.6 Review

The potential for chemical mixtures from the environment to enable the cancer hallmark of sustained proliferative signalling

期刊

CARCINOGENESIS
卷 36, 期 -, 页码 S38-S60

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/carcin/bgv030

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Fondazione Cariplo [2011-0370]
  2. Kuwait Institute for the Advancement of Sciences [2011-1302-06]
  3. Grant University Scheme (RUGs) Ministry of Education Malaysia [04-02-12-2099RU]
  4. Italian Ministry of University and Research [2009FZZ4XM_002]
  5. University of Florence
  6. US Public Health Service Grants [RO1 CA92306, RO1 CA92306-S1, RO1 CA113447]
  7. Department of Science and Technology, Government of India [SR/FT/LS-063/2008]
  8. National Institute for Health Research [II-ES-0511-21005]
  9. Nanosilver based catheters
  10. Medical Research Council UK [MR/L007215/1]
  11. WEM Consulting
  12. Getting to know cancer
  13. Medical Research Council [MR/L007215/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  14. MRC [MR/L007215/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this work is to review current knowledge relating the established cancer hallmark, sustained cell proliferation to the existence of chemicals present as low dose mixtures in the environment. Normal cell proliferation is under tight control, i.e. cells respond to a signal to proliferate, and although most cells continue to proliferate into adult life, the multiplication ceases once the stimulatory signal disappears or if the cells are exposed to growth inhibitory signals. Under such circumstances, normal cells remain quiescent until they are stimulated to resume further proliferation. In contrast, tumour cells are unable to halt proliferation, either when subjected to growth inhibitory signals or in the absence of growth stimulatory signals. Environmental chemicals with carcinogenic potential may cause sustained cell proliferation by interfering with some cell proliferation control mechanisms committing cells to an indefinite proliferative span.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据