Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26481584›Full record

ReviewGenome biology2015

The utility of transposon mutagenesis for cancer studies in the era of genome editing.

Gina M DeNicola, Florian A Karreth, David J Adams, Chi C Wong

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Ex Vivo Transposon-Mediated Genetic Screens for Cancer Gene Discovery.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2019
    Article
  11. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. DisentanglingMolecular & cellular oncology · 2017
    Article
  17. DNA Transposition at Work.Chemical reviews · 2016
    Review
  18. Engineered Swine Models of Cancer.Frontiers in genetics · 2016
    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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Gina M DeNicolaMeyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Florian A KarrethMeyer Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, 10021, USA. fak2009@med.cornell.edu.
David J AdamsExperimental Cancer Genetics, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, CB10 1HH, UK.
Chi C WongExperimental Cancer Genetics, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, CB10 1HH, UK. cw6@sanger.ac.uk.
Cornell University · USUniversity of Cambridge · GBWellcome Sanger Institute · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14356Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of transposons as insertional mutagens to identify cancer genes in mice has generated a wealth of information over the past decade. Here, we discuss recent major advances in transposon-mediated insertional mutagenesis screens and compare this technology with other screening strategies.

Indexed as

DNA Transposable ElementsGenes, NeoplasmAnimalsDisease ProgressionDrug Resistance, NeoplasmGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticGenomeHumansMiceMutagenesis, InsertionalNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasmsDNA Transposable Elements

Identifiers

PMID26481584
PMCPMC4612416
OpenAlexW2114788218

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.