Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26115037›Full record

ReviewBioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology2015

Mouse models of colorectal cancer as preclinical models.

Rebecca E McIntyre, Simon J A Buczacki, Mark J Arends, David J Adams

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca E McIntyreExperimental Cancer Genetics, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK.
Simon J A BuczackiLi Ka Shing Centre, Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, Cambridge, UK.
Mark J ArendsEdinburgh Cancer Research UK Centre, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.
David J AdamsExperimental Cancer Genetics, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridge, UK.
Wellcome Sanger Institute · GBCancer Research UK Cambridge Center · GBEdinburgh Cancer Research · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 13031Cancer Research UK 16485
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review, we discuss the application of mouse models to the identification and pre-clinical validation of novel therapeutic targets in colorectal cancer, and to the search for early disease biomarkers. Large-scale genomic, transcriptomic and epigenomic profiling of colorectal carcinomas has led to the identification of many candidate genes whose direct contribution to tumourigenesis is yet to be defined; we discuss the utility of cross-species comparative 'omics-based approaches to this problem. We highlight recent progress in modelling late-stage disease using mice, and discuss ways in which mouse models could better recapitulate the complexity of human cancers to tackle the problem of therapeutic resistance and recurrence after surgical resection.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsColorectal NeoplasmsGenes, NeoplasmHumansMolecular Targeted TherapyNeoplasms, ExperimentalSpecies SpecificityXenograft Model Antitumor AssaysAntineoplastic Agentscolorectal cancerdisease biomarkermouse modelome and omicstarget identificationtarget validation

Identifiers

PMID26115037
PMCPMC4755199
OpenAlexW1637076176

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.