Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19657341›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2009

RecQ helicases: multifunctional genome caretakers.

Wai Kit Chu, Ian D Hickson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 294 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
294citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
17.9field-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

294 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 472 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Structural Chemistry of Helicase Inhibition.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

234 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Wai Kit ChuWeatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9DS, UK.
Ian D Hickson
John Radcliffe Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Around 1% of the open reading frames in the human genome encode predicted DNA and RNA helicases. One highly conserved group of DNA helicases is the RecQ family. Genetic defects in three of the five human RecQ helicases, BLM, WRN and RECQ4, give rise to defined syndromes associated with cancer predisposition, some features of premature ageing and chromosomal instability. In recent years, there has been a tremendous advance in our understanding of the cellular functions of individual RecQ helicases. In this Review, we discuss how these proteins might suppress genomic rearrangements, and therefore function as 'caretaker' tumour suppressors.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanGene RearrangementGenes, Tumor SuppressorHumansNeoplasmsRecQ HelicasesRecQ Helicases

Identifiers

PMID19657341
OpenAlexW1968676497

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.