Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21979943›Full record

ReviewDisease models & mechanisms2011

Modeling tumor invasion and metastasis in Drosophila.

Wayne O Miles, Nicholas J Dyson, James A Walker

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Disease models & mechanisms, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing 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

69 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. CRIF counteracts oncogenic Ras and regulates heterochromatin.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Medical science pulse · 2025
    Article
  7. Drosophila as a Model for Metastasis.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Fruit fly for anticancer drug discovery and repurposing.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cells · 2021
    Review

9 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

3 authors.

Wayne O MilesMassachusetts General Hospital Center for Cancer Research and Harvard Medical School, Charlestown, MA 02129, USA.
Nicholas J Dyson
James A Walker

Funding

NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM53202
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conservation of major signaling pathways between humans and flies has made Drosophila a useful model organism for cancer research. Our understanding of the mechanisms regulating cell growth, differentiation and development has been considerably advanced by studies in Drosophila. Several recent high profile studies have examined the processes constraining the metastatic growth of tumor cells in fruit fly models. Cell invasion can be studied in the context of an in vivo setting in flies, enabling the genetic requirements of the microenvironment of tumor cells undergoing metastasis to be analyzed. This Perspective discusses the strengths and limitations of Drosophila models of cancer invasion and the unique tools that have enabled these studies. It also highlights several recent reports that together make a strong case for Drosophila as a system with the potential for both testing novel concepts in tumor progression and cell invasion, and for uncovering players in metastasis.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalModels, BiologicalAnimalsBrainDrosophila melanogasterEpitheliumNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm Metastasis

Identifiers

PMID21979943
PMCPMC3209645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.