English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

mutagenesis

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)