Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27483324›Full record

ReviewGenes2016

Telomerase: The Devil Inside.

Mukesh Kumar, Andre Lechel, Çagatay Güneş

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Frontiers in genetics · 2019
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Telomerase and drug resistance in cancer.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2017
    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 1 institution in 1 country.

Mukesh KumarDepartment of Urology, Ulm University, 89081 Ulm, Germany. mukesh.kumar@uniklinik-ulm.de.
Andre LechelDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Ulm University, 89081 Ulm, Germany. andre.lechel@uni-ulm.de.
Çagatay GüneşDepartment of Urology, Ulm University, 89081 Ulm, Germany. cagatay.guenes@uniklinik-ulm.de.
Universität Ulm · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High telomerase activity is detected in nearly all human cancers but most human cells are devoid of telomerase activity. There is well-documented evidence that reactivation of telomerase occurs during cellular transformation. In humans, tumors can rely in reactivation of telomerase or originate in a telomerase positive stem/progenitor cell, or rely in alternative lengthening of telomeres, a telomerase-independent telomere-length maintenance mechanism. In this review, we will focus on the telomerase positive tumors. In this context, the recent findings that telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) promoter mutations represent the most common non-coding mutations in human cancer have flared up the long-standing discussion whether cancer originates from telomerase positive stem cells or telomerase reactivation is a final step in cellular transformation. Here, we will discuss the pros and cons of both concepts in the context of telomere length-dependent and telomere length-independent functions of telomerase. Together, these observations may provoke a re-evaluation of telomere and telomerase based therapies, both in telomerase inhibition for cancer therapy and telomerase activation for tissue regeneration and anti-ageing strategies.

Indexed as

cancerstem cellstelomerasetelomere

Identifiers

PMID27483324
PMCPMC4999831
OpenAlexW2495880529

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.