Cancer Research Infection and Cancer: Biology, Therapeutics, and Prevention  Cancer Health Disparities Conference 2009
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online

[Cancer Research 28, 1150-1155, June 1, 1968]
© 1968 American Association for Cancer Research

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mauro, F.
Right arrow Articles by Elkind, M. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mauro, F.
Right arrow Articles by Elkind, M. M.

Differences in Survival Variations during the Growth Cycle of Cultured Chinese Hamster Cells Treated with Sulfur Mustard and X-rays1

F. Mauro2 and M. M. Elkind

Radiation Biology Section, Laboratory of Physiology, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20014

Although the survival of surface-attached Chinese hamster cells varies through the growth cycle after either X-irradiation or sulfur mustard treatment, the variations differ. Cells in the latter part of the DNA synthetic phase yield maximum survival after X-rays, while cells in the postsynthetic phase are the most resistant after sulfur mustard. As a result, when asynchronous cells are treated with either agent, they are rendered partially synchronized although out of phase.

The differences in the cyclic variations of survival after treatment with sulfur mustard compared to X-rays indicates that the damaging influences of these agents cannot be the same in all respects.

1 We gratefully acknowledge postdoctoral support for F. Mauro from the Institute of Genetics, University of Rome and Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, and the NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.

2 Present address: Division of Radiation Biology, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Mo. 63110.

Received 11/ 7/67. Accepted 2/22/68.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
Copyright © 1968 by the American Association for Cancer Research.