Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 23 references

Tumorigenesis as a trauma response: the fragmentation of morphogenetic memory drives neoplastic dissociation

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that tumorigenesis is best understood as a stress-induced dissociative loop in which cells fragment from the tissue's morphogenetic memory and regress to a single-cell survival state.

desk verdict A clearly-written speculative synthesis that maps PTSD structural dissociation onto tumorigenesis; the analogy is generative but the causal arrow is not supported, and the paper itself concedes mutation-initiated cancers. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.20363 v1 pith:EMFYK4HJ submitted 2025-08-28 q-bio.CB q-bio.NCq-bio.PEq-bio.TO

Jordan Strasser This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.CBq-bio.NCq-bio.PEq-bio.TO
keywords cancertraumadissociationmulticellularitymorphogeneticmemoryPTSDstressresponsetumorigenesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that cancer is not primarily a disease of mutations but a morphogenetic trauma response: when a tissue endures unresolvable stress, its cells progressively lose the shared electrical, mechanical, and chemical connections that encode morphogenetic memory, the tissue-level memory of anatomical form. The dissociated cells regress to a single-cell survival state, and the hallmarks of cancer follow as downstream consequences of that regressed state. The paper draws a structural parallel to PTSD, in which unresolved trauma fragments autobiographical memory into an intrusive, hypervigilant subsystem; tumors, in this view, are the anatomical equivalent of an intrusive trauma memory. If the framework is right, metastasis is a secondary fragmentation, cachexia is a learned homeostatic suppression, and cancer therapy should aim at reintegration rather than destruction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is morphogenetic memory: a temporally persistent topology of intercellular connectivity, carried by bioelectrical signals (gap junctions and resting membrane potential), biomechanical forces (cadherins, integrins, cytoskeletal transmission), and biochemical fields (morphogen gradients, growth factors, damage signals), through which cells share stress and read their position in the body. The paper claims this memory is the tissue-level analogue of autobiographical memory, and that cancer is what happens when it fragments: a dissociative loop in which cells lose the collective reference frame, interpret physiological error cues as single-cell survival signals, and are d

What would settle it

Take a tumor model carrying a canonical oncogenic driver such as KRAS or BRAF V600E, restore gap-junction coupling and normal resting membrane potential in the tumor while leaving the mutations intact, and ask whether cells return to non-invasive, tissue-appropriate behavior. The framework predicts yes across tumor types; a single tumor type where restored connectivity leaves neoplastic behavior unchanged would undercut the claim that dissociation is the driving cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that tumorigenesis is a stress-induced dissociative loop that reinforces anatomically intrusive behavior. The argument defines multicellularity as the sharing of stress: cells couple their homeostatic error states through gap junctions, adhesion complexes, and morphogen gradients, and this coupled network constitutes a distributed regulatory architecture called morphogenetic memory, which aligns local stress responses with collective anatomical goals. Under chronic unresolvable stress, cells weaken these connections and progressively uncouple from the electrical, mechanical, and biochemical fields that hold tissue identity. Once uncoupled, they fall back on ancient singl

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on the premise that tissues are genuinely stress-sharing collectives whose shared memory of anatomical form can dissociate like a mind; if that is only a metaphor, the cancer-as-trauma mechanism and its reintegration therapy lose their targets.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The hallmarks of cancer are predicted to emerge from dissociation itself, not to require a particular mutation set; sustained proliferation, metabolic reprogramming, invasion, and immune evasion follow from the regressed single-cell state.
  • Restoring intercellular connectivity, for example by bioelectrical or gap-junction modulation, should normalize tumorigenic cells even when oncogenic mutations remain present.
  • Metaplasia, hyperplasia, and dysplasia should be read as early stages of tissue dissociation rather than merely as precancerous lesions.
  • Cachexia may be a classically conditioned suppression of normal homeostatic programs by tissue that has learned to associate those programs with tumor-derived stress.
  • Therapy should shift from direct tumor destruction toward reintegration: reconnecting cancer cells to the surrounding tissue's regulatory architecture so they resume apoptosis, anoikis, or differentiation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If dissociation is the driver, then measurable loss of gap-junction coupling or depolarization of resting membrane potential should precede and predict malignant transformation; monitoring tissue bioelectrical properties could become an early-warning screen. This is my inference, not stated in the paper.
  • The framework and the atavism theory of cancer may converge: regression to ancestral single-cell programs could be the consequence of memory fragmentation, not the cause. A test would be whether restoring connectivity suppresses the ancestral gene-expression program.
  • A strong extension the paper signals but does not develop: systemic stress signals, such as catecholamines and glucocorticoids, may act as adjuvants that either deepen or reverse dissociation, making stress-hormone modulation a candidate companion to reintegrative therapy.
  • The framework implies that molecular signals like TGF-beta are context-dependent because their meaning is set by the cell's degree of integration or dissociation, so mapping a cell's relational architecture may be as important as mapping its signaling pathways.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper is a Perspective proposing that tumorigenesis is best understood as a morphogenetic trauma response, i.e., a stress-induced dissociative loop in which cells lose access to the tissue-level 'morphogenetic memory' and regress to a unicellular stress-survival state. It builds an evolutionary narrative in which stress sharing drives multicellularity (Section 1), argues that chronic unresolvable stress fragments the electrical, mechanical, and biochemical coupling that constitutes tissue-level memory (Sections 2.1 and 2.2), and claims that the hallmarks of cancer 'naturally emerge' from the resulting single-cell hyperarousal and hypervigilance (Section 2.3). The framework is extended by an analogy with structural dissociation in PTSD (Section 3), leading to a proposed 'reintegrative' therapeutic strategy (Section 4.1) and several auxiliary speculations about cachexia and context-dependent signaling (Section 4.2). The manuscript contains no new experimental data or formal model; it is an integrative essay grounded in selected literature, with many references to the author's research program.

Significance. If the central claim were established, this would be an important reframing of cancer biology, shifting emphasis from driver mutations to the breakdown of multicellular information processing and suggesting non-cytotoxic, 'memory-reprocessing' therapies. The paper is ambitious and brings together developmental bioelectricity, cancer biology, and trauma psychology in a way that could stimulate useful hypothesis generation. It is also clearly written and visually structured around explicit analogies. However, the significance is currently heuristic rather than evidential. The manuscript provides no machine-checked proofs, no reproducible code, no new data, and no formal derivation; its foundational premises are imported from the same research program that the framework extends. The most testable part is the claim that experimentally disrupting specific coupling modalities should reproduce or reverse neoplastic behavior, but the paper does not formulate such predictions sharply. As a Perspective, the contribution is interesting; as a scientific claim about cancer causation, it is not yet supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [§2.2, first paragraph] The central thesis is that tumorigenesis is 'a stress-induced dissociative loop' and 'not primarily a disease of mutations' (Introduction and Conclusion). Yet §2.2 concedes: 'Whether initiated by oncogenic mutations or microenvironmental constraints, prolonged error accumulation weakens intercellular coupling.' In mutation-initiated tumors, fragmentation of morphogenetic memory is downstream of the initiating event, directly contradicting the claimed primacy of dissociation. To support the ordering and sufficiency implied by the thesis, the manuscript needs a concrete test: for example, longitudinal reporters of gap-junction/Vmem/cadherin coupling in premalignant lesions to test whether uncoupling precedes driver mutations, or perturbation of coupling alone in otherwise wild-type tissue to test whether hallmarks follow. Without such a test, the relationship is correlational, and the 'not
  2. [§2.3, 'Naturally produce the hallmarks'] Section 2.3 asserts that single-cell hyperarousal and hypervigilance 'naturally produce the hallmarks of cancer as downstream signaling consequences.' The pathways listed (ROS, HIF-1α, UPR, ISR, growth-factor receptors, β-adrenergic signaling) are well-known stress responses active in normal physiology, in wound healing, and in tumors with driver mutations. Their presence does not demonstrate that they are downstream of dissociation specifically. The manuscript does not identify any hallmark-generating pathway that is unique to uncoupled cells, nor does it compare against coupled tissues under the same stress. Without such a comparison, the 'natural emergence' claim is an assertion, not a derivation. The authors should either provide a formal argument mapping dissociation to these pathways or explicitly label this section as heuristic.
  3. [§2.2 and §4: definitional circularity] Neoplasia is defined in §2.2 as 'a state defined by the complete fragmentation of the body's shared regulatory architecture,' and the framework then finds dissociation in cancer and treats it as etiological. This is partly circular. Similarly, the 'Morphogenetic Self' introduced in §4 is not operationally defined. To make the framework falsifiable, the manuscript should specify independent, measurable indicators of morphogenetic dissociation (e.g., gap-junction conductance, Vmem heterogeneity, cadherin turnover, or an information-theoretic measure of tissue coupling) and state a null prediction: e.g., tumors that retain normal coupling should not exhibit the dissociative hallmarks, or restoring coupling should not alter tumor behavior. Without such operationalization, the core construct cannot be distinguished from the phenomenon it is meant to explain.
  4. [§4.1: therapeutic implication] The reintegrative therapeutic claim is stated too strongly. The cited evidence (Illmensee & Mintz 1976; Postovit et al. 2008; Chernet & Levin 2013a,b) shows that certain tumor-like cells can be normalized in permissive microenvironments or by bioelectrical manipulation in specific experimental systems, but it does not show that established cancers with canonical drivers are generally reversible by 'reprocessing morphogenetic memory.' The manuscript's own sentence 'It remains to be tested whether combining molecular signals of safety with bioelectrical reprogramming could enhance therapeutic efficacy' concedes the gap. This is acceptable for a Perspective only if the therapeutic section is framed as a speculative proposal, not as an implication that follows from the framework. Please add explicit scope limitations and define what would count as evidence against the reintegrative approach.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and formatting issues: 'Barret's' should be 'Barrett's'; 'VanderV orst' is corrupted; many references contain stray spaces ('F .', 'V .') and inconsistent DOI capitalization. A careful proofread and reference cleanup is needed.
  2. [Figures] The text refers to Figures 1–4, but no figure captions or actual figures appear in the supplied text. If the figures are essential to the argument, the final version must include captions that define abbreviations such as Vmem, ANP, EP, and the arrows in the dissociation loops.
  3. [§2.2.2] The phrase 'stress-induced suppression of mechanotransducive pathways, such as the Hippo cascade' would benefit from a citation or two; the current text relies on Misra & Irvine (2018) but does not directly support stress-induced suppression in the specific context claimed.
  4. [§4.2.1] The cachexia-as-classical-conditioning analogy is interesting but the transition is abrupt. The manuscript should clarify whether this is a formal model or an illustrative parallel, and should identify what experimental observation would distinguish it from a purely metabolic explanation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Neoplasia is defined as fragmentation, making 'dissociation drives tumorigenesis' partly tautological; the hallmarks argument retains independent content.

  1. self definitional [Section 2.2 ('Breaking a tissue'); title; §2.3.4 ('Transition to Psychology')]
    "If chronic, unresolvable stress persists, the tissue can cross a threshold into neoplasia—a state defined by the complete fragmentation of the body's shared regulatory architecture. ... In this light, the dissociation that drives tumorigenesis finds its cognitive analogue in traumatic dissociation."

    The paper stipulatively defines neoplasia as 'the complete fragmentation of the body's shared regulatory architecture.' It also uses 'neoplastic dissociation' and 'fragmentation of morphogenetic memory' to denote the same loss of intercellular coupling. The title's causal claim—'the fragmentation of morphogenetic memory drives neoplastic dissociation'—therefore asserts X drives X, and 'the dissociation that drives tumorigenesis' is true by definition rather than by empirical evidence. This definitional identity is load-bearing for the central reframing, though the subsequent claim that stress-activated pathways 'naturally produce' the hallmarks of cancer has independent empirical content.

full rationale

The paper is a conceptual Perspective with no quantitative predictions or fitted parameters, so most standard circularity patterns do not apply. The one genuine circular step is the stipulative definition in §2.2: neoplasia is defined as complete fragmentation of the shared regulatory architecture, making the title claim that fragmentation drives neoplastic dissociation a tautology. However, the paper does not rely solely on this definition: it cites extensive external literature on stress pathways, gap-junction loss, and tumor uncoupling, and it explicitly concedes that neoplasia can be 'initiated by oncogenic mutations or microenvironmental constraints,' acknowledging alternative causal routes. The claim that hallmarks emerge from single-cell stress circuitry is an empirical synthesis, not a consequence of the definition. Self-citations to the Levin/Shreesha framework are present and load-bearing for the multicellularity premise, but they refer to external computational and experimental work rather than to an unverified assertion within this paper; thus, they are not circular. Overall, the central framing is partly circular by definition, but enough independent content remains to avoid a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper has no numerical free parameters. Its premises are qualitative assumptions borrowed from Levin's research program and trauma psychology; the central analogy is an act of definitional framing rather than a derivation. All axioms are domain claims that would need separate empirical support.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Stress is the discrepancy between a cell's homeostatic setpoints and sensory states; natural selection favors minimizing stress.
    Section 1.1 states this as a definition and evolutionary pressure; it is assumed, not derived.
  • domain assumption Multicellularity emerged through sharing of stress signals between cells.
    Section 1.2 cites Shreesha and Levin (2024) and Plattner (2017); the paper treats this as established.
  • domain assumption Morphogenetic memory is a temporally persistent topology of intercellular connectivity.
    Section 1.3 defines this concept (citing Levin 2012) and relies on it throughout.
  • domain assumption Chronic unresolvable stress causes tissues to weaken intercellular connections and explore abnormal morphologies.
    Section 2.1 asserts this as the trigger for precancerous states; it is a core causal premise.
  • ad hoc to paper Trauma/dissociation concepts from psychology are generalizable to somatic tissues.
    Section 4 states 'the concept of trauma should be generalized beyond the neural realm'; this is the paper's defining analogy, not an established result.
invented entities (1)
  • Morphogenetic Self
    purpose: To name the collective locus of memory, interpretation, and meaning-making in anatomical space, analogous to the psychological Self.
    Introduced in Section 4 as a conceptual entity; no falsifiable handle is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tumorigenesis as a trauma response: the fragmentation of morphogenetic memory drives neoplastic dissociation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EMFYK4HJ

@misc{pith2026250820363,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tumorigenesis as a trauma response: the fragmentation of morphogenetic memory drives neoplastic dissociation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EMFYK4HJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.20363}
}
read the original abstract

The mitigation of stress is a key challenge for all biological systems. Conditions of unresolvable stress have been associated with a diverse array of pathologies, from cancer to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Here, I unify insights from evolutionary and developmental biology with trauma psychology to present a novel framework for tumorigenesis which synthesizes stress-perception, tissue dysfunction, and the hallmarks of neoplastic growth. This view carries therapeutic implications, suggesting a reintegrative approach that seeks to return cancer cells to the homeostatic control of the surrounding tissue.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Piggyback resistive Micromegas

    Aasen, T., Leithe, E., Graham, S. V ., Kameritsch, P ., Mayán, M. D., Mesnil, M., Pogoda, K., & Tabernero, A. (2019). Connexins in cancer: bridging the gap to the clinic. Oncogene, 38(23), 4429-4451. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41388-019-0741-6 Acerbi, I., Cassereau, L., Dean, I., Shi, Q., Au, A., Park, C., Chen, Y ., Liphardt, J., Hwang, E., & Weaver, V . (...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  2. [3]

    Van Der Kolk, B., Greenberg, M., Boyd, H., & Krystal, J. (1985). Inescapable shock, neurotransmitters, and addiction to trauma: Toward a psychobiology of post traumatic stress. Biological Psychiatry, 20(3), 314-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3223(85)90061-7 Van der Kolk, B. A. (1994). The body keeps the score: Memory and the evolving psychobiology of p...

    work page arXiv 1985

  3. [9]

    Duncan, E

    Respiratory research, 6, 1-10. Duncan, E. J., Gluckman, P . D., & Dearden, P . K. (2014). Epigenetics, plasticity, and evolution: How do we link epigenetic change to phenotype? Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 322(4), 208-220. Dvorak, H. F . (1986). Tumors: wounds that do not heal. Similarities between tumor s...

    work page 2014

  4. [10]

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02688 Levin, M. (2023). Bioelectric networks: the cognitive glue enabling evolutionary scaling from physiology to mind. Anim Cogn , ISSN = 1435-9456 (Electronic) 1435-9448 (Linking) , DOI = 10.1007/s10071-023-01780-3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37204591 Levin, M., Pezzulo, G., & Finkelstein, J. M. (2017). Endoge...

    arXiv 2019

  5. [13]

    Janet, P . (1904). L'amnésie et la dissociation des souvenirs par l'émotion. F . Alcan. Janet, P . (1909). Les névroses (Vol. 2). E. Flammarion. Jeanes, A., Gottardi, C., & Yap, A. (2008). Cadherins and cancer: how does cadherin dysfunction promote tumor progression? Oncogene, 27(55), 6920-6929. Joshi, S. R., Parikh, R. M., & Das, A. (2007). Insulin-histo...

    work page 1904

  6. [19]

    Kao, S.-H., Wu, K.-J., & Lee, W.-H. (2016). Hypoxia, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, and TET-mediated epigenetic changes. Journal of clinical medicine, 5(2),

    work page 2016

  7. [24]

    C., Teddy, J

    Kasemeier-Kulesa, J. C., Teddy, J. M., Postovit, L. M., Seftor, E. A., Seftor, R. E., Hendrix, M. J., & Kulesa, P . M. (2008). Reprogramming multipotent tumor cells with the embryonic neural crest microenvironment. Dev Dyn, 237(10), 2657-2666 , ISSN = 1058-8388 (Print). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=C itation&li...

    work page arXiv 2008

  8. [37]

    M., & Chan, C

    White, E., Mehnert, J. M., & Chan, C. S. (2015). Autophagy, Metabolism, and Cancer. Clinical Cancer Research, 21(22), 5037-5046. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078- 0432.ccr-15-0490 William Jr, W. N., Zhang, J., Zhao, X., Parra, E. R., Uraoka, N., Lin, H. Y ., Peng, S. A., El‐ Naggar, A. K., Rodriguez‐Canales, J., & Song, J. (2023). Spatial PD‐L1, immune‐cell m...

    arXiv 2015

Show all 23 references
  1. [53]

    J., Kaltman, D

    Murugan, N. J., Kaltman, D. H., Jin, P . H., Chien, M., Martinez, R., Nguyen, C. Q., Kane, A., Novak, R., Ingber, D. E., & Levin, M. (2021). Mechanosensation Mediates Long- Range Spatial Decision-Making in an Aneural Organism. Adv Mater, 33(34), e2008161 , ISSN = 2001521-20040...

    2021

  2. [55]

    K., Almekinders, M

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2021.08.002 Casasent, A. K., Almekinders, M. M., Mulder, C., Bhattacharjee, P ., Collyar, D., Thompson, A. M., Jonkers, J., Lips, E. H., van Rheenen, J., & Hwang, E. S. (2022). Learning to distinguish progressive and non-progressive ductal ...

    2021 doi

  3. [168]

    G., Weis, W

    Borghi, N., Sorokina, M., Shcherbakova, O. G., Weis, W. I., Pruitt, B. L., Nelson, W. J., & Dunn, A. R. (2012). E-cadherin is under constitutive actomyosin-generated tension that is increased at cell–cell contacts upon externally applied stretch. Proceedings of the National Ac...

    2012

  4. [199]

    W., Chan, C

    Chan, D. W., Chan, C. Y ., Yam, J. W., Ching, Y . P ., & Ng, I. O. (2006). Prickle-1 negatively regulates Wnt/β-catenin pathway by promoting Dishevelled ubiquitination/degradation in liver cancer. Gastroenterology, 131(4), 1218-1227. Chang, H. Y ., Chi, J. T., Dudoit, S., Bond...

    2006

  5. [219]

    K., Gibbs, D

    Strasser, M. K., Gibbs, D. L., Gascard, P ., Bons, J., Hickey, J. W., Pan, D., Caruso, J. A., Wang, X., Chen-Tanyolac, C., & Bai, R. (2025). Concerted changes in Epithelium and Stroma: a multi-scale, multi-omics analysis of progression from Barrett’s Esophagus to adenocarcinom...

    2025

  6. [320]

    S., Cohen, J., Breglio, K., Krishnareddy, S., Hsu, D., Xu, R., Harpaz, N., & Dannenberg, A

    https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr3189 Fukata, M., Chen, A., Vamadevan, A. S., Cohen, J., Breglio, K., Krishnareddy, S., Hsu, D., Xu, R., Harpaz, N., & Dannenberg, A. J. (2007). Toll-like receptor-4 promotes the development of colitis-associated colorectal tumors. Gastroenterology, 1...

    2007

  7. [355]

    Dornblaser, D., Young, S., & Shaukat, A. (2024). Colon polyps: updates in classification and management. Current Opinion in Gastroenterology, 40(1), 14-20. Droemann, D., Albrecht, D., Gerdes, J., Ulmer, A. J., Branscheid, D., Vollmer, E., Dalhoff, K., Zabel, P ., & Goldmann, T...

    2024

  8. [422]

    Vilasco, M., Communal, L., Mourra, N., Courtin, A., Forgez, P ., & Gompel, A. (2011). Glucocorticoid receptor and breast cancer. Breast cancer research and treatment, 130, 1-10. Wang, C., Shen, Y ., Ni, J., Hu, W., & Yang, Y . (2022). Effect of chronic stress on tumorigenesis ...

    2011

  9. [694]

    R., Spinhoven, P ., Van Dyck, R., van der Hart, O., & Vanderlinden, J

    Nijenhuis, E. R., Spinhoven, P ., Van Dyck, R., van der Hart, O., & Vanderlinden, J. (1998). Degree of somatoform and psychological dissociation in dissociative disorder is correlated with reported trauma. Journal of traumatic stress, 11(4), 711-730. Nijenhuis, E. R. S. (1994)...

    1998

  10. [735]

    P ., & Brown, M

    Aggleton, J. P ., & Brown, M. W. (1999). Episodic memory, amnesia, and the hippocampal– anterior thalamic axis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(3), 425-444. Alfaro-Arnedo, E., López, I. P ., Piñeiro-Hermida, S., Canalejo, M., Gotera, C., Sola, J. J., Roncero, A., Peces-Barba...

    1999 arXiv

  11. [2010]

    Belfiore, A., & Malaguarnera, R. (2011). Insulin receptor and cancer. Endocrine-related cancer, 18(4), R125-R147. Ben-Moshe, S., & Itzkovitz, S. (2019). Spatial heterogeneity in the mammalian liver. Nature reviews Gastroenterology & hepatology, 16(7), 395-410. Bischoff, F ., &...

    2011

  12. [2428]

    L., Pawson, T., & Dikic, I

    Deribe, Y . L., Pawson, T., & Dikic, I. (2010). Post-translational modifications in signal integration. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology, 17(6), 666-672. https://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.1842 Dhar, R., Sagesser, R., Weikert, C., & Wagner, A. (2013). Yeast adapts to a chan...

    2010

  13. [2518]

    K., Weremowicz, S., Chen, H., Carrasco, D., Richardson, A., Violette, S., Nikolskaya, T., & Nikolsky, Y

    Hu, M., Yao, J., Carroll, D. K., Weremowicz, S., Chen, H., Carrasco, D., Richardson, A., Violette, S., Nikolskaya, T., & Nikolsky, Y . (2008). Regulation of in situ to invasive breast carcinoma transition. Cancer Cell, 13(5), 394-406. Huang, B., Zhao, J., Li, H., He, K.-L., Ch...

    2008

  14. [2748]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112748 Van der Hart, O., & Brom, D. (2000). When the victim forgets: Trauma-induced amnesia and its assessment in Holocaust survivors. In International handbook of human response to trauma (pp. 233-248). Springer. Van der Kolk, B. (2014). The b...

    2000 doi

  15. [6834]

    W., & Sood, A

    https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24076834 Cole, S. W., & Sood, A. K. (2012). Molecular Pathways: Beta-Adrenergic Signaling in Cancer. Clinical Cancer Research, 18(5), 1201-1206. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr- 11-0641 Costa, F . F ., Seftor, E. A., Bischof, J. M., Kirschmann...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.