ReviewCurrent biology : CB2012
Cellular hyperproliferation and cancer as evolutionary variables.
Review in Current biology : CB, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Elephant and the Spandrel.Evolution, medicine, and public health · 2025Article
- Discovery of Pyrazoline Benzenesulfonamide Derivatives as Anticancer Agents: A Review.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Review
- Article
- Bacteria colonization in tumor microenvironment creates a favorable niche for immunogenic chemotherapy.EMBO molecular medicine · 2024Article
- Chemopreventive effects of pterostilbene through p53 and cell cycle in mouse lung of squamous cell carcinoma model.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Cancer progression as a sequence of atavistic reversions.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2021Article
- Evolution, kidney development, and chronic kidney disease.Seminars in cell & developmental biology · 2019Review
- Planarians as models to investigate the bioactivity of gold(I) complexes in vivo.Scientific reports · 2018Article
- Article
- Evolutionary Nephrology.Kidney international reports · 2017Article
- Review
- Article
- Tumorigenesis as a process of gradual loss of original cell identity and gain of properties of neural precursor/progenitor cells.Cell & bioscience · 2017Review
- Ancient hot and cold genes and chemotherapy resistance emergence.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2015Article
- Turning terminally differentiated skeletal muscle cells into regenerative progenitors.Nature communications · 2015Article
- Evolutionary determinants of cancer.Cancer discovery · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Technological advances in biology have begun to dramatically change the way we think about evolution, development, health and disease. The ability to sequence the genomes of many individuals within a population, and across multiple species, has opened the door to the possibility of answering some long-standing and perplexing questions about our own genetic heritage. One such question revolves around the nature of cellular hyperproliferation. This cellular behavior is used to effect wound healing in most animals, as well as, in some animals, the regeneration of lost body parts. Yet at the same time, cellular hyperproliferation is the fundamental pathological condition responsible for cancers in humans. Here, I will discuss why microevolution, macroevolution and developmental biology all have to be taken into consideration when interpreting studies of both normal and malignant hyperproliferation. I will also illustrate how a synthesis of evolutionary sciences and developmental biology through the study of diverse model organisms can inform our understanding of both health and disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.