Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26877768›Full record

ArticleMolecular cytogenetics2016

Why it is crucial to analyze non clonal chromosome aberrations or NCCAs?

Henry H Q Heng, Sarah M Regan, Guo Liu, Christine J Ye

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular cytogenetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
11.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Studying the Dynamics of Tunneling Tubes and Cellular Spheres.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  6. The Digital World of Cytogenetic and Cytogenomic Web Resources.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  7. The New Era of Cancer Cytogenetics and Cytogenomics.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Tracking Karyotype Changes in Treatment-Induced Drug-Resistant Evolution.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Resolving genetic heterogeneity in cancer.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2019
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Henry H Q HengCenter for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI 48201 USA ; Department of Pathology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 3226 Scott Hall, 540 E. Canfield, Detroit, MI 48201 USA.
Sarah M ReganCenter for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI 48201 USA ; Division of Graduate Medical Sciences, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA 02118 USA.
Guo LiuCenter for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, MI 48201 USA.
Christine J YeThe Division of Hematology/Oncology, University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Ann Arbor, MI USA.
Wayne State University · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Current cytogenetics has largely focused its efforts on the identification of recurrent karyotypic alterations, also known as clonal chromosomal aberrations (CCAs). The rationale of doing so seems simple: recurrent genetic changes are relevant for diseases or specific physiological conditions, while non clonal chromosome aberrations (NCCAs) are insignificant genetic background or noise. However, in reality, the vast majority of chromosomal alterations are NCCAs, and it is challenging to identify commonly shared CCAs in most solid tumors. Furthermore, the karyotype, rather than genes, represents the system inheritance, or blueprint, and each NCCA represents an altered genome system. These realizations underscore the importance of the re-evaluation of NCCAs in cytogenetic analyses. In this concept article, we briefly review the definition of NCCAs, some historical misconceptions about them, and why NCCAs are not insignificant "noise," but rather a highly significant feature of the cellular population for providing genome heterogeneity and complexity, representing one important form of fuzzy inheritance. The frequencies of NCCAs also represent an index to measure both internally- and environmentally-induced genome instability. Additionally, the NCCA/CCA cycle is associated with macro- and micro-cellular evolution. Lastly, elevated NCCAs are observed in many disease/illness conditions. Considering all of these factors, we call for the immediate action of studying and reporting NCCAs. Specifically, effort is needed to characterize and compare different types of NCCAs, to define their baseline in various tissues, to develop methods to access mitotic cells, to re-examine/interpret the NCCAs data, and to develop an NCCA database.

Indexed as

Clonal Chromosome Aberrations or CCAsFuzzy inheritanceGenome instabilityGenome theoryHeterogeneityNCCA/CCA cycleNon Clonal Chromosome Aberrations or NCCAsParts inheritanceSystem inheritance

Identifiers

PMID26877768
PMCPMC4752783
OpenAlexW2287956925

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.