Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21884641›Full record

ReviewBreast cancer research : BCR2011

Choosing the right cell line for breast cancer research.

Deborah L Holliday, Valerie Speirs

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 785 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
785citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.3field-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

785 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1,517 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 2-Hydroxy-1-naphthaldehyde-based organotin(IV) complexes: structural aspects, cytotoxicity, DNA binding interaction, and molecular docking.Biometals : an international journal on the role of metal ions in biology, biochemistry, and medicine · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

725 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.

Deborah L HollidayLeeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds LS9 7TF, UK.
Valerie Speirs
University of Leeds · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer is a complex and heterogeneous disease. Gene expression profiling has contributed significantly to our understanding of this heterogeneity at a molecular level, refining taxonomy based on simple measures such as histological type, tumour grade, lymph node status and the presence of predictive markers like oestrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) to a more sophisticated classification comprising luminal A, luminal B, basal-like, HER2-positive and normal subgroups. In the laboratory, breast cancer is often modelled using established cell lines. In the present review we discuss some of the issues surrounding the use of breast cancer cell lines as experimental models, in light of these revised clinical classifications, and put forward suggestions for improving their use in translational breast cancer research.

Indexed as

Cell Line, TumorAnimalsBreast NeoplasmsErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesEstrogen Receptor alphaFemaleHumansMiceNeoplastic Stem CellsReceptors, ProgesteroneResearch DesignXenograft Model Antitumor AssaysERBB2 protein, humanErb-b2 Receptor Tyrosine KinasesESR1 protein, humanEstrogen Receptor alphaReceptors, Progesterone

Identifiers

PMID21884641
PMCPMC3236329
OpenAlexW1994930469

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.