Genes Dev 2009,23(16):1895–1909.PubMedCrossRef 28. Knappskog S, Chrisanthar R, Løkkevik E, Anker G, Østenstad B, Lundgren S, Risberg T, AZD2014 solubility dmso Mjaaland I, Leirvaag B, Miletic H, Lønning PE: Low expression levels of ATM may substitute for CHEK2/TP53 mutations predicting resistance towards anthracycline and mitomycin chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2012,14(2):R47.PubMedCrossRef 29. Daemen A, Wolf DM, Korkola JE, Griffith OL, Frankum JR, Brough R, Jakkula LR, Wang NJ, Natrajan R, Reis-Filho JS, Lord CJ, Ashworth A, Spellman PT, Gray JW, Van’t Veer LJ: Cross-platform pathway-based analysis

identifies markers of response to the PARP inhibitor olaparib. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012,135(2):505–517. Ku-0059436 cell line doi: 10.1007/s10549–012–2188–0. Epub 2012 Aug 9PubMedCrossRef 30. Mendeleyev J, Kirsten E, Hakam A, Buki KG, Kun E: Potential chemotherapeutic activity of 4-iodo-3-nitrobenzamide. Metabolic reduction to the 3-nitroso derivative and induction of cell death in tumor cells in culture. Biochem Pharmacol 1995,50(5):705–714.PubMedCrossRef 31. Patel AG, De Lorenzo SB, Flatten

KS, Poirier GG, Kaufmann SH: Failure of iniparib to inhibit poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase in vitro. Clin Cancer Res 2012,18(6):1655–1662.PubMedCrossRef 32. Liu X, Shi Y, Maag DX, Palma JP, Patterson MJ, Ellis PA, Surber BW, Ready DB, Soni NB, Ladror US, Xu AJ, Iyer R, Harlan JE, Solomon LR, Donawho CK, Penning TD, Johnson EF, Shoemaker AR: Iniparib nonselectively modifies cysteine-containing proteins in tumor cells and is not a bona fide PARP inhibitor. Clin Cancer Res 2012,18(2):510–523.PubMedCrossRef Competing interests

Acetophenone The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Authors’ contributions MSGM and DM performed cytotoxicity and assays, clonogenicity and cell cycle profiles. AP, VS and LM performed shRNA transfection, cell selection, and western blotting. MPG and VG were responsible for cell handling. MSGM, AP, DB and SS were involved in the experimental design and conception, data collection and analysis. SS wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.”
“Background Although superficial bladder cancer generally has a good long-term prognosis, up to 80% of patients will have local recurrence within 5 years of the primary tumor resection [1]. After transurethral resection of bladder cancer (TURB), standard follow up involves numerous cystoscopies with consequently high healthcare costs and low patient compliance. Multiplicity, tumor size and prior relapse rate are the only recurrence-related parameters currently available for monitoring patients with bladder cancer [1], but such information would not seem to be accurate enough to ensure an adequate follow-up of individuals with stage Ta-T1 non muscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).