ReviewInternational journal of experimental pathology2005
Embryonic reversions and lineage infidelities in tumour cells: genome-based models and role of genetic instability.
Review in International journal of experimental pathology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing Endogenous Plasticity Rather than Reprogramming of Mature Cells Will Advance Regenerative Medicine, Cancer Treatment and Rejuvenation.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- Lineage infidelity in FH-deficient RCC with secondary somatic alterations: a case report and implications for diagnosis and treatment.Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2026Article
- Mutation or not, what directly establishes a neoplastic state, namely cellular immortality and autonomy, still remains unknown and should be prioritized in our research.Journal of Cancer · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reversions to "embryonic precursor"-type cells and infidelities of tumour cell lineage (including metaplasias) have been recognized as aspects of various tumour types since the 19th century. Since then, evidence of these phenomena has been obtained from numerous clinical, biochemical, immunological and molecular biological studies. In particular, microarray studies have suggested that "aberrant" expressions of relevant genes are common. An unexplained aspect of the results of these studies is that, in many tumour types, the embryonic reversion or lineage infidelity only occurs in a proportion of cases. As a parallel development during the molecular biological investigation of tumours over the last several decades, genetic instability has been found much more marked, at least in some preparations of tumour cells, than that identified by means of previous karyotypic investigations of tumours. This study reviews examples of embryonic reversion and lineage infidelity phenomena, which have derived from the various lines of investigation of cancer over the last 150 or so years. Four categories of circumstances of the occurrence of embryonic reversions or lineage infidelities have been identified - (i) as part of the defining phenotype of the tumour, and hence being presumably integral to the tumour type, (ii) present ab initio in only some cases of the tumour type, and presumably being regularly associated with, but incidental to, the essential features of the tumour type, (iii) occurring later in the course of the disease and thus being possibly a manifestation of in vivo genetic instability and "tumour progression" and (iv) arising probably by genetic instability, during the processes, especially cell culture, associated with ex vivo investigations. Genomic models are described which might account for the origin of these phenomena in each of these circumstances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.