Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16426418›Full record

ArticleCell proliferation2006

Mathematical model for the cancer stem cell hypothesis.

R Ganguly, I K Puri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell proliferation, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Modeling head and neck cancer stem cell-mediated tumorigenesis.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2016
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Modeling cell-cell interactions in regulating multiple myeloma initiating cell fate.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2014
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Population dynamics of cancer cells with cell state conversions.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2013
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

R GangulyDepartment of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA.
I K Puri

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent research on the origin of brain cancer has implicated a subpopulation of self-renewing brain cancer stem cells for malignant tumour growth. Various genes that regulate self-renewal in normal stem cells are also found in cancer stem cells. This implies that cancers can occur because of mutations in normal stem cells and early progenitor cells. A predictive mathematical model based on the cell compartment method is presented here to pose and validate non-intuitive scenarios proposed through the neural cancer stem cell hypothesis. The growths of abnormal (stem and early progenitor) cells from their normal counterparts are ascribed with separate mutation probabilities. Stem cell mutations are found to be more significant for the development of cancer than a similar mutation in the early progenitor cells. The model also predicts that, as previously hypothesized, repeated insult to mature cells increases the formation of abnormal progeny, and hence the risk of cancer.

Indexed as

Cell Transformation, NeoplasticModels, BiologicalAnimalsBrain NeoplasmsCell LineageCell ProliferationDNA DamageHumansMutationNeoplastic Stem CellsNeuronsSignal Transduction

Identifiers

PMID16426418
PMCPMC6495990

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.