Response to “The tissue organization field theory of cancer: A testable replacement for the somatic mutation theory” [Book Review]

Bioessays 33 (9):660-661 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article has no associated abstract. (fix it)

Categories

Keywords

Reprint years

DOI

10.1002/bies.201100063

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,164

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

My notes

Similar books and articles

The tissue organization field theory of cancer: A testable replacement for the somatic mutation theory.Ana M. Soto & Carlos Sonnenschein - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (5):332-340.
Response to “In defense of the somatic mutation theory of cancer”.Carlos Sonnenschein & Ana M. Soto - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (9):657-659.
TOFT better explains experimental results in cancer research than SMT (Comment on DOI 10.1002/bies.201100025 and DOI 10.1002/bies.201100022). [REVIEW]Stuart G. Baker - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (12):919-921.
In defense of the somatic mutation theory of cancer.David L. Vaux - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (5):341-343.
Counterpoints in cancer: The somatic mutation theory under attack.David Thomas & Andrew Moore - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (5):313-314.
Are tumor cells protected from some anti‐cancer drugs by elevated APC/C activity? (Comment on DOI: 10.1002/bies.201100094). [REVIEW]Duncan J. Clarke - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (12):898-898.
ftz Evolution: Findings, hypotheses and speculations (response to DOI 10.1002/bies.201100019).Alison Heffer, Ulrike Löhr & Leslie Pick - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (12):910-918.
On somatic mutations and tissue fields in cancer.Satgé Daniel - 2011 - Bioessays 33 (12):922-923.
On somatic mutations and tissue fields in cancer: additional observations challenge the SMT.Daniel Satgé - 2011 - Bioessays: News and Reviews in Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology 33 (12):922.
HapMap European American genotypes are compatible with the hypothesis of MHC‐dependent mate choice (response to DOI 10.1002/bies.201200023, Derti and Roth). [REVIEW]Romain Laurent & Raphaëlle Chaix - 2012 - Bioessays 34 (10):871-872.
Genomic vagabonds: Endogenous retroviruses and placental evolution (comment on DOI 10.1002/bies.201300059).David Haig - 2013 - Bioessays 35 (10):845-846.
Why do we need three dynamins? (Comment on DOI 10.1002/bies.201200033).Nikolaus Pawlowski - 2012 - Bioessays 34 (8):632-632.
Whither the gonads? (Comment on DOI 10.1002/bies.201200081).Donna L. Maney - 2012 - Bioessays 34 (12):1008-1008.
A new class of transcription factors? (Comment on DOI 10.1002/bies.201100089).Christopher Pin - 2012 - Bioessays 34 (1):6-6.
A new paradigm in phosphoinositide signaling? (Comment on DOI 10.1002/bies.201100195).Eva Yw So & Alice L.‐F. Mui - 2012 - Bioessays 34 (8):633-633.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-28

Downloads
28 (#536,385)

6 months
8 (#283,518)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references