Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16299527›Full record

ReviewOncogene2005

Retroviral insertional mutagenesis: past, present and future.

A G Uren, J Kool, A Berns, M van Lohuizen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Oncogene, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 145 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
145citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

145 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. RNA therapeutics: current status and future directions.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Leveraging T cells for cancer immunotherapy.Immunity & inflammation · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Optimal delivery of RNA interference by viral vectors for cancer therapy.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2023
    Review
  9. A History of Cancer Research: Retroviral Insertional Mutagenesis.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2023
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

85 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

4 authors.

A G UrenDivision of Molecular Genetics, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam.
J Kool
A Berns
M van Lohuizen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Retroviral insertion mutagenesis screens in mice are powerful tools for efficient identification of oncogenic mutations in an in vivo setting. Many oncogenes identified in these screens have also been shown to play a causal role in the development of human cancers. Sequencing and annotation of the mouse genome, along with recent improvements in insertion site cloning has greatly facilitated identification of oncogenic events in retrovirus-induced tumours. In this review, we discuss the features of retroviral insertion mutagenesis screens, covering the mechanisms by which retroviral insertions mutate cellular genes, the practical aspects of insertion site cloning, the identification and analysis of common insertion sites, and finally we address the potential for use of somatic insertional mutagens in the study of nonhaematopoietic and nonmammary tumour types.

Indexed as

Mutagenesis, InsertionalCloning, MolecularDNA Transposable ElementsGenes, Tumor SuppressorGenetic TestingHumansNeoplasmsProto-OncogenesRetroviridaeDNA Transposable Elements

Identifiers

PMID16299527

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.