Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18923433›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2008

VEGF-A splicing: the key to anti-angiogenic therapeutics?

Steven J Harper, David O Bates

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 276 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
276citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.7field-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

276 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 507 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Alternative splicing and cancer: a systematic review.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. The Current Role of Antiangiogenics in Colorectal Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  9. Polymorphisms inBiomedicines · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

216 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Steven J HarperMicrovascular Research Laboratories, Department of Physiology & Pharmacology, Bristol Heart Institute, School of Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Southwell Street, Bristol BS2 8EJ, UK. s.harper@bristol.ac.uk
David O Bates
NIHR Bristol Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit · GBUniversity of Bristol · GB

Funding

British Heart Foundation BS/06/005/20340
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The physiology of microvessels limits the growth and development of tumours. Tumours gain nutrients and excrete waste through growth-associated microvessels. New anticancer therapies target this microvasculature by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A) splice isoforms that promote microvessel growth. However, certain VEGF-A splice isoforms in normal tissues inhibit growth of microvessels. Thus, it is the VEGF-A isoform balance, which is controlled by mRNA splicing, that orchestrates angiogenesis. Here, we highlight the functional differences between the pro-angiogenic and the anti-angiogenic VEGF-A isoform families and the potential to harness the synthetic capacity of cancer cells to produce factors that inhibit, rather than aid, cancer growth.

Indexed as

Alternative SplicingAngiogenesis InhibitorsAnimalsHumansNeoplasmsNeovascularization, PathologicVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAngiogenesis InhibitorsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Identifiers

PMID18923433
PMCPMC2613352
OpenAlexW1976221241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.