Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26929366›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2016

Dynamics inside the cancer cell attractor reveal cell heterogeneity, limits of stability, and escape.

Qin Li, Anders Wennborg, Erik Aurell, Erez Dekel, Jie-Zhi Zou, Yuting Xu, Sui Huang, Ingemar Ernberg

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Dynamical systems of fate and form in development.Seminars in cell & developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Control of Cellular Differentiation Trajectories for Cancer Reversion.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Qin LiDepartment of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell Biology, Karolinska Institutet, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden;
Anders WennborgDepartment of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell Biology, Karolinska Institutet, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden;
Erik AurellAlba Nova University Center, Royal Institute of Technology, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden;
Erez DekelDepartment of Molecular Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel;
Jie-Zhi ZouDepartment of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell Biology, Karolinska Institutet, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden;
Yuting XuDepartment of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD 21205-2179;
Sui HuangInstitute of Systems Biology, Seattle, WA 98109.
Ingemar ErnbergDepartment of Microbiology, Tumor and Cell Biology, Karolinska Institutet, 17177 Stockholm, Sweden; ingemar.ernberg@ki.se.
Karolinska Institutet · SEInstitute for Systems Biology · USJohns Hopkins University · USKTH Royal Institute of Technology · SEWeizmann Institute of Science · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The observed intercellular heterogeneity within a clonal cell population can be mapped as dynamical states clustered around an attractor point in gene expression space, owing to a balance between homeostatic forces and stochastic fluctuations. These dynamics have led to the cancer cell attractor conceptual model, with implications for both carcinogenesis and new therapeutic concepts. Immortalized and malignant EBV-carrying B-cell lines were used to explore this model and characterize the detailed structure of cell attractors. Any subpopulation selected from a population of cells repopulated the whole original basin of attraction within days to weeks. Cells at the basin edges were unstable and prone to apoptosis. Cells continuously changed states within their own attractor, thus driving the repopulation, as shown by fluorescent dye tracing. Perturbations of key regulatory genes induced a jump to a nearby attractor. Using the Fokker-Planck equation, this cell population behavior could be described as two virtual, opposing influences on the cells: one attracting toward the center and the other promoting diffusion in state space (noise). Transcriptome analysis suggests that these forces result from high-dimensional dynamics of the gene regulatory network. We propose that they can be generalized to all cancer cell populations and represent intrinsic behaviors of tumors, offering a previously unidentified characteristic for studying cancer.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, GeneticApoptosisB-LymphocytesCell Line, TransformedCell ProliferationFlow CytometryGene Expression ProfilingHumansIntercellular Adhesion Molecule-1KineticsNeoplasmsNeprilysinOrganic Cation Transporter 2Organic Cation Transport ProteinsReceptors, IgEIntercellular Adhesion Molecule-1NeprilysinOrganic Cation Transporter 2Organic Cation Transport ProteinsReceptors, IgESLC22A2 protein, humancancer cell attractorcell heterogeneitycell population dynamicsedge cellsgene regulatory network

Identifiers

PMID26929366
PMCPMC4790994
OpenAlexW2288284086

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.