Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19519209›Full record

ReviewFuture oncology (London, England)2009

Therapeutic potential of manipulating VEGF splice isoforms in oncology.

Emma S Rennel, Steven J Harper, David O Bates

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Future oncology (London, England), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. VEGF gene alternative splicing: pro- and anti-angiogenic isoforms in cancer.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2012
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The mouse retina as an angiogenesis model.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2010
    Review
  17. Alternative RNA splicing and cancer.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. RNA
    Review
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

3 authors.

Emma S RennelMicrovascular Research Laboratories, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, School of Veterinary Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Emma.Rennel@bris.ac.uk
Steven J Harper
David O Bates

Funding

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

Abstract

Anti-angiogenic therapies currently revolve around targeting vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A) or its receptors. These therapies are effective to some degree, but have low response rates and poor side-effect profiles. Part of these problems is likely to be due to their lack of specificity between pro- and anti-angiogenic isoforms, and their nonspecific effects on proactive, pleiotropic survival and maintenance roles of VEGF-A in endothelial and other cell types. An alternative approach, and one which has recently been shown to be effective in animal models of neovascularization in the eye, is to target the mechanisms by which the cell generates pro-angiogenic splice forms of VEGF-A, its receptors and, co-incidentally, by targeting the upstream processes, other oncogenes that have antagonistic splice isoforms. The concept here is to target the splicing mechanisms that control splice site choice in the VEGF-A mRNA. Recent evidence on the pharmacological possibilities of such splice factors is described.

Indexed as

Angiogenesis InhibitorsAnimalsHumansNeoplasmsNeovascularization, PathologicProtein IsoformsReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAngiogenesis InhibitorsProtein IsoformsReceptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth FactorVascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Identifiers

PMID19519209
PMCPMC2879319

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.