↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: the challenge ahead

Overview of attention for article published in Carcinogenesis, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 4,194)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

38 news outlets
5 blogs
1 policy source
127 tweeters
49 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page
4 Google+ users
1 Redditor


130 Dimensions

Readers on

328 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Assessing the carcinogenic potential of low-dose exposures to chemical mixtures in the environment: the challenge ahead
Published in
Carcinogenesis, June 2015
DOI 10.1093/carcin/bgv039
Pubmed ID

William H. Goodson, Leroy Lowe, David O. Carpenter, Michael Gilbertson, Abdul Manaf Ali, Adela Lopez de Cerain Salsamendi, Ahmed Lasfar, Amancio Carnero, Amaya Azqueta, Amedeo Amedei, Amelia K. Charles, Andrew R. Collins, Andrew Ward, Anna C. Salzberg, Anna Maria Colacci, Ann-Karin Olsen, Arthur Berg, Barry J. Barclay, Binhua P. Zhou, Carmen Blanco-Aparicio, Carolyn J. Baglole, Chenfang Dong, Chiara Mondello, Chia-Wen Hsu, Christian C. Naus, Clement Yedjou, Colleen S. Curran, Dale W. Laird, Daniel C. Koch, Danielle J. Carlin, Dean W. Felsher, Debasish Roy, Dustin G. Brown, Edward Ratovitski, Elizabeth P. Ryan, Emanuela Corsini, Emilio Rojas, Eun-Yi Moon, Ezio Laconi, Fabio Marongiu, Fahd Al-Mulla, Ferdinando Chiaradonna, Firouz Darroudi, Francis L. Martin, Frederik J. Van Schooten, Gary S. Goldberg, Gerard Wagemaker, Gladys N. Nangami, Gloria M. Calaf, Graeme P. Williams, Gregory T. Wolf, Gudrun Koppen, Gunnar Brunborg, H. Kim Lyerly, Harini Krishnan, Hasiah Ab Hamid, Hemad Yasaei, Hideko Sone, Hiroshi Kondoh, Hosni K. Salem, Hsue-Yin Hsu, Hyun Ho Park, Igor Koturbash, Isabelle R. Miousse, A.Ivana Scovassi, James E. Klaunig, Jan Vondráček, Jayadev Raju, Jesse Roman, John Pierce Wise, Jonathan R. Whitfield, Jordan Woodrick, Joseph A. Christopher, Josiah Ochieng, Juan Fernando Martinez-Leal, Judith Weisz, Julia Kravchenko, Jun Sun, Kalan R. Prudhomme, Kannan Badri Narayanan, Karine A. Cohen-Solal, Kim Moorwood, Laetitia Gonzalez, Laura Soucek, Le Jian, Leandro S. D’Abronzo, Liang-Tzung Lin, Lin Li, Linda Gulliver, Lisa J. McCawley, Lorenzo Memeo, Louis Vermeulen, Luc Leyns, Luoping Zhang, Mahara Valverde, Mahin Khatami, Maria Fiammetta Romano, Marion Chapellier, Marc A. Williams, Mark Wade, Masoud H. Manjili, Matilde E. Lleonart, Menghang Xia, Michael J. Gonzalez Guzman, Michalis V. Karamouzis, Micheline Kirsch-Volders, Monica Vaccari, Nancy B. Kuemmerle, Neetu Singh, Nichola Cruickshanks, Nicole Kleinstreuer, Nik van Larebeke, Nuzhat Ahmed, Olugbemiga Ogunkua, P.K. Krishnakumar, Pankaj Vadgama, Paola A. Marignani, Paramita M. Ghosh, Patricia Ostrosky-Wegman, Patricia A. Thompson, Paul Dent, Petr Heneberg, Philippa Darbre, Po Sing Leung, Pratima Nangia-Makker, Qiang (Shawn) Cheng, R.Brooks Robey, Rabeah Al-Temaimi, Rabindra Roy, Rafaela Andrade-Vieira, Ranjeet K. Sinha, Rekha Mehta, Renza Vento, Riccardo Di Fiore, Richard Ponce-Cusi, Rita Dornetshuber-Fleiss, Rita Nahta, Robert C. Castellino, Roberta Palorini, Roslida A. Hamid, Sabine A.S. Langie, Sakina E. Eltom, Samira A. Brooks, Sandra Ryeom, Sandra S. Wise, Sarah N. Bay, Shelley A. Harris, Silvana Papagerakis, Simona Romano, Sofia Pavanello, Staffan Eriksson, Stefano Forte, Stephanie C. Casey, Sudjit Luanpitpong, Tae-Jin Lee, Takemi Otsuki, Tao Chen, Thierry Massfelder, Thomas Sanderson, Tiziana Guarnieri, Tove Hultman, Valérian Dormoy, Valerie Odero-Marah, Venkata Sabbisetti, Veronique Maguer-Satta, W.Kimryn Rathmell, Wilhelm Engström, William K. Decker, William H. Bisson, Yon Rojanasakul, Yunus Luqmani, Zhenbang Chen, Zhiwei Hu


Lifestyle factors are responsible for a considerable portion of cancer incidence worldwide, but credible estimates from the World Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) suggest that the fraction of cancers attributable to toxic environmental exposures is between 7% and 19%. To explore the hypothesis that low-dose exposures to mixtures of chemicals in the environment may be combining to contribute to environmental carcinogenesis, we reviewed 11 hallmark phenotypes of cancer, multiple priority target sites for disruption in each area and prototypical chemical disruptors for all targets, this included dose-response characterizations, evidence of low-dose effects and cross-hallmark effects for all targets and chemicals. In total, 85 examples of chemicals were reviewed for actions on key pathways/mechanisms related to carcinogenesis. Only 15% (13/85) were found to have evidence of a dose-response threshold, whereas 59% (50/85) exerted low-dose effects. No dose-response information was found for the remaining 26% (22/85). Our analysis suggests that the cumulative effects of individual (non-carcinogenic) chemicals acting on different pathways, and a variety of related systems, organs, tissues and cells could plausibly conspire to produce carcinogenic synergies. Additional basic research on carcinogenesis and research focused on low-dose effects of chemical mixtures needs to be rigorously pursued before the merits of this hypothesis can be further advanced. However, the structure of the World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety 'Mode of Action' framework should be revisited as it has inherent weaknesses that are not fully aligned with our current understanding of cancer biology.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 127 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 328 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 318 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 79 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 13%
Other 34 10%
Student > Master 28 9%
Student > Bachelor 26 8%
Other 72 22%
Unknown 48 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 16%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 44 13%
Environmental Science 24 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 22 7%
Other 61 19%
Unknown 63 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 436. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 July 2019.
All research outputs
of 15,176,529 outputs
Outputs from Carcinogenesis
of 4,194 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 233,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Carcinogenesis
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,176,529 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,194 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 233,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.