Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23044827›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2012

Evolution of the cancer genome.

Lucy R Yates, Peter J Campbell

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 333 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
333citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

333 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Molecular Diagnostics and [Thyroid : official journal of the American Thyroid Association · 2024
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Profiling Extrachromosomal Circular DNA (ecDNA) in CancerAnti-cancer agents in medicinal chemistry · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

273 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.

Lucy R YatesCancer Genome Project, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton CB10 1SA, UK.
Peter J Campbell

Funding

Wellcome Trust 088340Wellcome Trust 093867
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The advent of massively parallel sequencing technologies has allowed the characterization of cancer genomes at an unprecedented resolution. Investigation of the mutational landscape of tumours is providing new insights into cancer genome evolution, laying bare the interplay of somatic mutation, adaptation of clones to their environment and natural selection. These studies have demonstrated the extent of the heterogeneity of cancer genomes, have allowed inferences to be made about the forces that act on nascent cancer clones as they evolve and have shown insight into the mutational processes that generate genetic variation. Here we review our emerging understanding of the dynamic evolution of the cancer genome and of the implications for basic cancer biology and the development of antitumour therapy.

Indexed as

MutationEvolution, MolecularGene-Environment InteractionGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenome, HumanHumansModels, GeneticNeoplasmsSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID23044827
PMCPMC3666082

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.