The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A new theory of carcinogenesis
Open accessAbstract
Although many carcinogens are mutagens, there is no direct evidence that the cancer-cell phenotype is the result of gene mutation. Transplantation experiments have strongly indicated that malignant cells can arise or revert to the normal phenotype in the absence of mutation. It is suggested that damage to DNA followed by repair triggers the epigenetic changes in gene expression which are responsible for malignancy. We previously proposed that methylation of specific DNA sequences adjacent to structural genes determines whether or not transcription will occur. Specific methylases are required for the switching on of genes and for the stable maintenance of the methylated state, which provides a basis for the control of gene expression in differentiated cells. It is now seen that damage to DNA followed by repair, just before or just after DNA replication, can lead to the loss of methyl groups. This can induce a switch in gene activity which is heritable, but potentially reversible. The known large difference in the probability of malignant transformation in cells of rodents and large mammals is hard to explain if mutation is responsible. On the other hand, this new theory provides an explanation for this difference, since the probability of epigenetic changes in gene activity will depend on the activity of methylating enzymes and the rate of excision repair. The theory is supported by the evidence that excision repair is more efficient in cultured fibroblasts from large long-lived animals than from small short-lived ones.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
DNA methylation and epigenetic inheritance
Holliday, R. (1990) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.1990.0015 · Cited by 2,279
Self-citationTargeting epigenetic regulators for cancer therapy: mechanisms and advances in clinical trials
Cheng, Y., He, C., Wang, M., Ma, X., Mo, F., Yang, S., Han, J., & Wei, X. (2019) · Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy · doi:10.1038/s41392-019-0095-0 · Cited by 1,097
“The alteration of cellular methylation status by a specific methyltransferase might explain the differences in the probability of malignant transformation.(5) In clinical settings, we noticed that although cancer patients share the same staging and grade, they present totally different outcomes.”
BackgroundThe Inheritance of Epigenetic Defects
Holliday, R. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3310230 · Cited by 1,082
Self-citationWong, A. J., Bigner, S. H., Bigner, D. D., Kinzler, K. W., Hamilton, S. R., & Vogelstein, B. (1987) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.84.19.6899 · Cited by 849
Hon, G. C., Hawkins, R. D., Caballero, O. L., Lo, C., Lister, R., Pelizzola, M., Valsesia, A., Ye, Z., Kuan, S., Edsall, L. E., et al. (2012) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.125872.111 · Cited by 583
Metadata
- Authors
- Holliday, R.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 1979-10
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 513-522
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2006488092
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A new theory of carcinogenesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.1979.216
- The paper
- Holliday, R. (1979). A new theory of carcinogenesis. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1979.216
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.