Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24657535›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in genetics & development2014

Zebrafish models of cancer: progress and future challenges.

Jennifer Yen, Richard M White, Derek L Stemple

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in genetics & development, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Zebrafish as a Model for Translational Immuno-Oncology.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Fishing for answers in precision cancer medicine.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Frontiers in oncology · 2017
    Review
  19. Alternative haplotypes of antigen processing genes in zebrafish diverged early in vertebrate evolution.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2016
    Article
  20. Review
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jennifer YenWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Cambridge CB10 1SA, United Kingdom.
Richard M WhiteMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill-Cornell Medical College, New York, NY 11788, United States.
Derek L StempleWellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Cambridge CB10 1SA, United Kingdom. Electronic address: ds4@sanger.ac.uk.
Wellcome Sanger Institute · GBMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The need for scalable strategies to probe the biological consequences of candidate cancer genes has never been more pressing. The zebrafish, with its capacity for high-throughput transgenesis, in vivo imaging and chemical/genetic screening, has ideal features for undertaking this task. Unique biological insights from zebrafish have already led to the identification of novel oncogenic drivers and small molecules being used to treat the human cancer. This review summarizes the recent main findings and describes pertinent areas where the zebrafish can greatly contribute to our understanding of cancer biology and treatment.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsZebrafishAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalEpigenesis, GeneticGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticGenomicsHumans

Identifiers

PMID24657535
PMCPMC4003353
OpenAlexW2121386810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.