Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22704055›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of nutritional biochemistry2012

Cancer stem cells: potential target for bioactive food components.

Young S Kim, William Farrar, Nancy H Colburn, John A Milner

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of nutritional biochemistry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Perspective: Neuroregenerative Nutrition.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2017
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Significance of stem cell markerOncology letters · 2016
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Increased Oxidative Stress as a Selective Anticancer Therapy.Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity · 2015
    Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Young S KimNutritional Science Research Group, Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. yk47s@nih.gov
William Farrar
Nancy H Colburn
John A Milner
National Cancer Institute · USCenter for Cancer Research · USFrederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research · US

Funding

Identification of Biomarkers for Response to Chemoprevention of Colon CancerZIABC011159 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI COLBURN, NANCY H. · 2009 to 2013
$1.3M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer stem cells often have phenotypic and functional characteristics similar to normal stem cells including the properties of self-renewal and differentiation. Recent findings suggest that uncontrolled self-renewal may explain cancer relapses and may represent a critical target for cancer prevention. It is conceivable that the loss of regulatory molecules resulting from inappropriate consumption of specific foods and their constituents may foster the aberrant self-renewal of cancer stem cells. In fact, increasing evidence points to the network delivering signals for self-renewal from extracellular compartments to the nucleus including changes in stem cell environments, inducible expression of microRNAs, hyperplastic nuclear chromatin structures, and the on/off of differentiation process as possible sites of action for bioactive food components. Diverse dietary constituents such as vitamins A and D, genistein, (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), sulforaphane, curcumin, piperine, theanine and choline have been shown to modify self-renewal properties of cancer stem cells. The ability of these bioactive food components to influence the balance between proliferative and quiescent cells by regulating critical feedback molecules in the network including dickkopf 1 (DKK-1), secreted frizzled-related protein 2 (sFRP2), B cell-specific Moloney murine leukemia virus integration site 1 (Bmi-1) and cyclin-dependent kinase 6 (CDK6) may account for their biological response. Overall, the response to food components does not appear to be tissue or organ specific, suggesting there may be common cellular mechanisms. Unquestionably, additional studies are needed to clarify the physiological role of these dietary components in preventing the resistance of tumor cells to traditional drugs and cancer recurrence.

Indexed as

AlkaloidsBenzodioxolesCatechinCell DifferentiationCell ProliferationCholineCurcuminCyclin-Dependent Kinase 6DietEpigenesis, GeneticGene Expression RegulationGenisteinGlutamatesHumansIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsIsothiocyanatesAlkaloidsBenzodioxolesBMI1 protein, humanCatechinCholineCurcuminCyclin-Dependent Kinase 6DKK1 protein, humanepigallocatechin gallateGenisteinGlutamatesIntercellular Signaling Peptides and ProteinsIsothiocyanatesMembrane ProteinsNuclear ProteinsPiperidinespiperinePlant ExtractsPolycomb Repressive Complex 1Polyunsaturated AlkamidesProto-Oncogene ProteinsRepressor ProteinsSecreted Frizzled-Related ProteinsSFRP2 protein, humanSTAT1 Transcription FactorsulforaphaneSulfoxidestheanineThiocyanatesVitamin AVitamin DWnt Proteins

Identifiers

PMID22704055
PMCPMC4518442
OpenAlexW2164820271

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.