Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23250634›Full record

ArticleCytotechnology2013

Cancer stem cell hypothesis: a brief summary and two proposals.

Shuhua Zheng, Longzuo Xin, Aihua Liang, Yuejun Fu

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cytotechnology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Electrotherapies for Glioblastoma.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Do Mutations Turn p53 into an Oncogene?International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Targeting GLI Transcription Factors in Cancer.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Shuhua ZhengKey Laboratory of Chemical Biology and Molecular Engineering of Ministry of Education, Institute of Biotechnology, Shanxi University, Taiyuan, 030006, People's Republic of China.
Longzuo Xin
Aihua Liang
Yuejun Fu
Hebei North University · CNShanxi University · CNShanxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CNUniversity of Miami · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The investigation and development of the cancer stem cell (CSC) model has received much focus during these years. CSC is characterized as a small fraction of cancer cells that have an indefinite ability for self-renewal and pluripotency and are responsible for initiating and sustaining of the bulk of cancer. So, whether current treatment strategies, most of which target the rapid division of cancer cells, could interfere with the slow-cycling CSCs is broadly questioned. Meanwhile, however, the new understanding of tumorigenesis has led to the development of new drug screening strategies. Both stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells have been vigorously used in pre-clinical studies of their anti-tumor potential, mainly due to their inherent tumoritropic migratory properties and their ability to carry anti-tumor transgenes. Here, based on the tumorigenic and tumoritropic characteristics of CSCs, we proposed two hypotheses exploring possible usage of CSCs as novel anti-tumor agents and potential sources for tissue regeneration. Further experimental validation of these hypotheses may unravel some new research topics.

Identifiers

PMID23250634
PMCPMC3720968
OpenAlexW2067831102

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.