Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19693097›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2009

When mutants gain new powers: news from the mutant p53 field.

Ran Brosh, Varda Rotter

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 651 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
651citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
35.7field-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

651 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1,127 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Targeting p53 pathways: mechanisms, structures, and advances in therapy.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. LFPM inhibition of RING1-mediated p53Cell death and differentiation · 2026
    Article
  5. The p53 Isoforms as Potential Biomarkers in Different Cancer Entities.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. TP53 mutations and MDM2 polymorphisms in breast and ovarian cancers: amelioration by drugs and natural compounds.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Review

591 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.

Ran BroshDepartment of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel.
Varda Rotter
Weizmann Institute of Science · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ample data indicate that mutant p53 proteins not only lose their tumour suppressive functions, but also gain new abilities that promote tumorigenesis. Moreover, recent studies have modified our view of mutant p53 proteins, portraying them not as inert mutants, but rather as regulated proteins that influence the cancer cell transcriptome and phenotype. This influence is clinically manifested as association of TP53 mutations with poor prognosis and drug resistance in a growing array of malignancies. Here, we review recent studies on mutant p53 regulation, gain-of-function mechanisms, transcriptional effects and prognostic association, with a focus on the clinical implications of these findings.

Indexed as

AnimalsDisease Models, AnimalGenes, p53HumansMiceMutationNeoplasmsPrognosisTranscription, GeneticTumor Suppressor Protein p53Tumor Suppressor Protein p53

Identifiers

PMID19693097
OpenAlexW1968075505

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.