Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21593786›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2011

Human cancers express mutator phenotypes: origin, consequences and targeting.

Lawrence A Loeb

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 201 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
201citing 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

201 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The authors respond to feedback onFrontiers in oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Multistage carcinogenesis in occupational cholangiocarcinoma: the impact of clonal expansion and risk estimation.Genes and environment : the official journal of the Japanese Environmental Mutagen Society · 2024
    Article
  12. Direct and indirect selection in a proofreading polymerase.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

141 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

1 author.

Lawrence A LoebDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA. laloeb@u.washington.edu

Funding

Tumor mutation signaturesP01CA077852 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI MONNAT, RAYMOND J · 1999 to 2019
$26.0M
Fidelity of DNA SynthesisR01CA102029 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI LOEB, LAWRENCE A · 2003 to 2012
$3.3M
Mutator Phenotype in Human CancersR01CA115802 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI LOEB, LAWRENCE A · 2007 to 2011
$1.5M
The Werner Syndrome Protein in DNA Replication, Mutagenesis and Genomic StabilityR01AG033061 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI LOEB, LAWRENCE A · 2009 to 2010
$592k
NCI NIH HHS CA‑102029NCI NIH HHS CA‑105802NCI NIH HHS CA‑77852NCI NIH HHS P01 CA077852NCI NIH HHS R01 CA102029NCI NIH HHS R01 CA115802NIA NIH HHS AG‑033061NIA NIH HHS R01 AG033061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent data on DNA sequencing of human tumours have established that cancer cells contain thousands of mutations. These data support the concept that cancer cells express a mutator phenotype. This Perspective considers the evidence supporting the mutator phenotype hypothesis, the origin and consequences of a mutator phenotype, the implications for personalized medicine and the feasibility of ablating tumours by error catastrophe.

Indexed as

DNA RepairMutationAnimalsBase SequenceDisease ProgressionDNA DamageHumansMiceNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasmsPhenotypeSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID21593786
PMCPMC4007007

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.