295 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23938395)
1. The aging of the 2000 and 2011 Hallmarks of Cancer reviews: a critique.
Sonnenschein C; Soto AM
J Biosci; 2013 Sep; 38(3):651-63. PubMed ID: 23938395
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Cancer and the elusive cancer genes].
Sonnenschein C; Soto AM
Med Sci (Paris); 2014; 30(6-7):688-92. PubMed ID: 25014463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. An Integrative Approach Toward Biology, Organisms, and Cancer.
Sonnenschein C; Soto AM
Methods Mol Biol; 2018; 1702():15-26. PubMed ID: 29119499
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Emergentism as a default: cancer as a problem of tissue organization.
Soto AM; Sonnenschein C
J Biosci; 2005 Feb; 30(1):103-18. PubMed ID: 15824446
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Carcinogenesis explained within the context of a theory of organisms.
Sonnenschein C; Soto AM
Prog Biophys Mol Biol; 2016 Oct; 122(1):70-76. PubMed ID: 27498170
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A cancer theory kerfuffle can lead to new lines of research.
Baker SG
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2015 Feb; 107(2):. PubMed ID: 25528755
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. [Two Approaches to Cancer Development].
Šmardová J; Koptíková J
Klin Onkol; 2016; 29(4):259-66. PubMed ID: 27534782
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis: why it should be dropped and replaced.
Sonnenschein C; Soto AM
Mol Carcinog; 2000 Dec; 29(4):205-11. PubMed ID: 11170258
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Over a century of cancer research: Inconvenient truths and promising leads.
Sonnenschein C; Soto AM
PLoS Biol; 2020 Apr; 18(4):e3000670. PubMed ID: 32236102
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. SMT or TOFT? How the two main theories of carcinogenesis are made (artificially) incompatible.
Bedessem B; Ruphy S
Acta Biotheor; 2015 Sep; 63(3):257-67. PubMed ID: 25851566
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Theories of carcinogenesis: an emerging perspective.
Sonnenschein C; Soto AM
Semin Cancer Biol; 2008 Oct; 18(5):372-7. PubMed ID: 18472276
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The somatic mutation theory of cancer: growing problems with the paradigm?
Soto AM; Sonnenschein C
Bioessays; 2004 Oct; 26(10):1097-107. PubMed ID: 15382143
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The tissue organization field theory of cancer: a testable replacement for the somatic mutation theory.
Soto AM; Sonnenschein C
Bioessays; 2011 May; 33(5):332-40. PubMed ID: 21503935
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Cancer Metastases: So Close and So Far.
Sonnenschein C; Soto AM
J Natl Cancer Inst; 2015 Nov; 107(11):. PubMed ID: 26283653
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Somatic Mutation Theory - Why it's Wrong for Most Cancers.
Brücher BL; Jamall IS
Cell Physiol Biochem; 2016; 38(5):1663-80. PubMed ID: 27160408
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. SMT and TOFT: Why and How They are Opposite and Incompatible Paradigms.
Bizzarri M; Cucina A
Acta Biotheor; 2016 Sep; 64(3):221-39. PubMed ID: 27283400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Towards a systemic paradigm in carcinogenesis: linking epigenetics and genetics.
Burgio E; Migliore L
Mol Biol Rep; 2015 Apr; 42(4):777-90. PubMed ID: 25387435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Stochastic modeling indicates that aging and somatic evolution in the hematopoetic system are driven by non-cell-autonomous processes.
Rozhok AI; Salstrom JL; DeGregori J
Aging (Albany NY); 2014 Dec; 6(12):1033-48. PubMed ID: 25564763
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. SMT and TOFT Integrable After All: A Reply to Bizzarri and Cucina.
Bedessem B; Ruphy S
Acta Biotheor; 2017 Mar; 65(1):81-85. PubMed ID: 27535677
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Hallmarks of cancer and hallmarks of aging.
Blagosklonny MV
Aging (Albany NY); 2022 May; 14(9):4176-4187. PubMed ID: 35533376
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
