Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Paschke, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Paschke, T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Mutagenesis, Vol. 16, No. 6, 555-556, November 2001
© 2001 UK Environmental Mutagen Society/Oxford University Press


LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Reply to the contribution of Hainaut, Olivier and Pfeifer (TP53 mutation spectrum in lung cancers and mutagenic signature of components of tobacco smoke: lessons from the IARC TP53 mutation database)

Thilo Paschke

Analytisch-Biologisches Forschungslabor (ABF), Goethestraße 20, D-80336 Munich, Germany

Abstract

The topic of my contribution published recently in a `Discussion Forum' in Mutagenesis was the comparison of different versions of the IARC p53 database with respect to data on lung cancer of smokers and non-smokers. Most importantly, this comparison revealed a number of discrepancies in the classification of smoking status of identical lung cancer entries in different versions (R1, R2 and R3) of the database. Additionally, no statistically significant differences in G->T transversion mutation frequencies or in mutational hotspots at codons 157, 248 and 273 were found in the R3 version of the database comparing lung cancer in smokers and non-smokers. Finally, a possible influence of confounding factors on p53 mutation spectra was demonstrated. In the present Letter Hainaut et al. refer to my paper and conclude that `indiscriminate inclusion of mutations in his dataset may partially explain what he sees as discrepancies'. I appreciate the editors of Mutagenesis giving me the opportunity to reply to some critical comments made by Hainaut et al.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.