Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21963855›Full record

ReviewOncogene2012

Checkpoint control and cancer.

R H Medema, L Macůrek

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Oncogene, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 89 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
89citing 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

89 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Synergistic Effects of DNA-PKcs Inhibition and Radiotherapy in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Balancing DNA repair to prevent ageing and cancer.Experimental cell research · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

29 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.

R H MedemaDepartment of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
L Macůrek

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA-damaging therapies represent the most frequently used non-surgical anticancer strategies in the treatment of human tumors. These therapies can kill tumor cells, but at the same time they can be particularly damaging and mutagenic to healthy tissues. The efficacy of DNA-damaging treatments can be improved if tumor cell death is selectively enhanced, and the recent application of poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors in BRCA1/2-deficient tumors is a successful example of this. DNA damage is known to trigger cell-cycle arrest through activation of DNA-damage checkpoints. This arrest can be reversed once the damage has been repaired, but irreparable damage can promote apoptosis or senescence. Alternatively, cells can reenter the cell cycle before repair has been completed, giving rise to mutations. In this review we discuss the mechanisms involved in the activation and inactivation of DNA-damage checkpoints, and how the transition from arrest and cell-cycle re-entry is controlled. In addition, we discuss recent attempts to target the checkpoint in anticancer strategies.

Indexed as

DNA DamageDNA RepairApoptosisCell CycleCell Cycle CheckpointsHumansNeoplasmsProtein KinasesTemazepamProtein KinasesTemazepam

Identifiers

PMID21963855

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.