Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10725343›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2000

Aneuploidy vs. gene mutation hypothesis of cancer: recent study claims mutation but is found to support aneuploidy.

R Li, A Sonik, R Stindl, D Rasnick, P Duesberg

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed
9.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

74 citing papers in PubMed, 257 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Cell Fusion and Syncytia Formation in Cancer.Results and problems in cell differentiation · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

R LiDepartment of Molecular and Cell Biology, Stanley Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.
A Sonik
R Stindl
D Rasnick
P Duesberg
University of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For nearly a century, cancer has been blamed on somatic mutation. But it is still unclear whether this mutation is aneuploidy, an abnormal balance of chromosomes, or gene mutation. Despite enormous efforts, the currently popular gene mutation hypothesis has failed to identify cancer-specific mutations with transforming function and cannot explain why cancer occurs only many months to decades after mutation by carcinogens and why solid cancers are aneuploid, although conventional mutation does not depend on karyotype alteration. A recent high-profile publication now claims to have solved these discrepancies with a set of three synthetic mutant genes that "suffices to convert normal human cells into tumorigenic cells." However, we show here that even this study failed to explain why it took more than "60 population doublings" from the introduction of the first of these genes, a derivative of the tumor antigen of simian virus 40 tumor virus, to generate tumor cells, why the tumor cells were clonal although gene transfer was polyclonal, and above all, why the tumor cells were aneuploid. If aneuploidy is assumed to be the somatic mutation that causes cancer, all these results can be explained. The aneuploidy hypothesis predicts the long latent periods and the clonality on the basis of the following two-stage mechanism: stage one, a carcinogen (or mutant gene) generates aneuploidy; stage two, aneuploidy destabilizes the karyotype and thus initiates an autocatalytic karyotype evolution generating preneoplastic and eventually neoplastic karyotypes. Because the odds are very low that an abnormal karyotype will surpass the viability of a normal diploid cell, the evolution of a neoplastic cell species is slow and thus clonal, which is comparable to conventional evolution of new species.

Indexed as

AneuploidyMutationCell Transformation, NeoplasticHumansNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID10725343
PMCPMC16222
OpenAlexW2088985983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.