Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23969693›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2013

Zebrafish cancer: the state of the art and the path forward.

Richard White, Kristin Rose, Leonard Zon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 223 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
223citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

223 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. The CaThe Journal of biological chemistry · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. A One Health Perspective on Cancer: A Narrative Review.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Macrophages Mediate Mesoscale Brain Mechanical Homeostasis.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Antitumor Activity ofMarine drugs · 2025
    Article

163 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

3 authors.

Richard WhiteCancer Biology and Genetics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10065, USA. whiter@mskcc.org
Kristin Rose
Leonard Zon

Funding

Cancer Biology in the ZebrafishR01CA103846 · NCI · CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOSTON · PI ZON, LEONARD IRA · 2003 to 2022
$7.5M
Evolutionary dynamics of melanoma metastasisDP2CA186572 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI WHITE, RICHARD MARK · 2013 to 2013
$2.7M
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNCI NIH HHS DP2 CA186572NCI NIH HHS R01 CA103846
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The zebrafish is a recent addition to animal models of human cancer, and studies using this model are rapidly contributing major insights. Zebrafish develop cancer spontaneously, after mutagen exposure and through transgenesis. The tumours resemble human cancers at the histological, gene expression and genomic levels. The ability to carry out in vivo imaging, chemical and genetic screens, and high-throughput transgenesis offers a unique opportunity to functionally characterize the cancer genome. Moreover, increasingly sophisticated modelling of combinations of genetic and epigenetic alterations will allow the zebrafish to complement what can be achieved in other models, such as mouse and human cell culture systems.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalGene ExpressionZebrafishAnimalsDrug Screening Assays, AntitumorEpigenesis, GeneticGenomicsHumansNeoplasmsNeoplasm Transplantation

Identifiers

PMID23969693
PMCPMC6040891

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.