Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23287475›Full record

ArticleCell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.)2013

The involvement of a Nanog, Klf4 and c-Myc transcriptional circuitry in the intertwining between neoplastic progression and reprogramming.

Ilaria Marzi, Maria Grazia Cipolleschi, Massimo D'Amico, Theodora Stivarou, Elisabetta Rovida, Maria Cristina Vinci, Silvia Pandolfi, Persio Dello Sbarba, Barbara Stecca, Massimo Olivotto

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cancer research · 2019
    Article
  8. Impact of ERK5 on the Hallmarks of Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ilaria MarziDepartment of Experimental Pathology and Oncology, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Maria Grazia Cipolleschi
Massimo D'Amico
Theodora Stivarou
Elisabetta Rovida
Maria Cristina Vinci
Silvia Pandolfi
Persio Dello Sbarba
Barbara Stecca
Massimo Olivotto
University of Florence · ITTumour Institute of Tuscany · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One undisputed milestone of traditional oncology is neoplastic progression, which consists of a progressive selection of dedifferentiated cells driven by a chance sequence of genetic mutations. Recently it has been demonstrated that the overexpression of well-defined transcription factors reprograms somatic cells to the pluripotent stem status. The demonstration raises crucial questions as to whether and to what extent this reprogramming contributes to tumorigenesis, and whether the epigenetic changes involved in it are reversible. Here, we show for the first time that a tumor produced in vivo by a chemical carcinogen is the product of the interaction between neoplastic progression and reprogramming. The experimental model employed the prototype of ascites tumors, the Yoshida AH130 hepatoma and other neoplasias, including human melanoma. AH130 hepatoma was started in the liver by the carcinogen o-aminoazotoluene. This compound binds to and abolishes the p53 protein, producing a genomic instability that promotes both the neoplastic progression and the hepatoma reprogramming. Eventually this tumor contained 100% CD133(+) elements and pO(2)-dependent percentages of the three embryonic transcription factors Nanog, Klf4 and c-Myc. Once transferred into aerobic cultures, the minor cellular fraction expressing this triad generates various types of adherent cells, which are progressively substituted by non-tumorigenic elements committed to fibromuscular, neuronal and glial differentiation. This reprogramming appears to be accomplished stepwise, with the assembly of the triad into a sophisticated transcriptional, oxygen-dependent circuitry, in which Nanog and Klf4 antagonistically regulate c-Myc, and hence, cell hypoxia survival and cell cycle activation.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell DedifferentiationCell Line, TumorCell Transformation, NeoplasticDNA PrimersFlow CytometryGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticGenomic InstabilityHumansKruppel-Like Factor 4Kruppel-Like Transcription FactorsLiver Neoplasms, ExperimentalMaleMicroscopy, ElectronNanog Homeobox Proteino-AminoazotolueneDNA PrimersKLF4 protein, humanKlf4 protein, ratKruppel-Like Factor 4Kruppel-Like Transcription FactorsNanog Homeobox ProteinNanog protein, rato-AminoazotolueneProto-Oncogene Proteins c-mycTranscription FactorsTumor Suppressor Protein p53cancer metabolismembryonic transcription factorsneoplastic progressionp53 lackpO2 and cell cycletumor reprogramming

Identifiers

PMID23287475
PMCPMC3575464
OpenAlexW2142754165

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.