Response to Letters by Whiteley et al and Goldstein et al

Response to letters by Baethge et al. and Martino et al.

© The Author(s) 2017. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if c...

Response to Sadek et al. and Kotlikoff et al.

Ditte Caroline Andersen,1,2,* Charlotte Harken Jensen,1 and Søren Paludan Sheikh1,3 1Laboratory of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology, Department of Clinical Biochemistry and Pharmacology, Odense University Hospital, 5000 Odense C, Denmark 2Clinical Institute/University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense C, Denmark 3Institute of Molecular Medicine/University of Southern Denmark, 5000 Odense C, Den...

In Response to Fakruddin et al. and Apostolou et al

In Response to Fakruddin et al. dicted to result in substitutions of amino acids at the and Apostolou et al. corresponding positions in the protein sequence. In each of these cases, individual tumor DNA samples possessed the same sequence as that of the corresponding cell line. We agree with many of the above findings, including To determine if the divergent sequences represented the frequency ...

In Response to Murphy et al., Löwer et al., and Lan et al

Authors' reply to letters from Egilman et al and Oliver et al

Dr Egilman and colleagues claim our report 1 implies that chrysotile does not cause mesothelioma. So did the International Chrysotile Association, the website of which highlighted our paper with the misleading headline 'reliable scientific data confirms negligible role of chryso-tile in UK patients with asbestos-related lung disease'. 2 Our results are consistent with the strong evidence that c...