ReviewCancer research2016
Somatic Engineering of Oncogenic Chromosomal Rearrangements: A Perspective.
Review in Cancer research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Traffic light at DSB-transit regulation between gene transcription and DNA repair.FEBS letters · 2025Review
- CRISPR in cancer biology and therapy.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2022Review
- SEMMs: Somatically Engineered Mouse Models. A New Tool forFrontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Somatic chromosomal engineering identifies BCAN-NTRK1 as a potent glioma driver and therapeutic target.Nature communications · 2017Article
- In vivo genome editing and organoid transplantation models of colorectal cancer and metastasis.Nature biotechnology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to engineer specific mutations in mice has proven essential to advancing our understanding of the molecular basis of cancer. Chromosomal rearrangements, a common and clinically relevant class of cancer-causing mutations, have however remained difficult to faithfully recapitulate in vivo The development of genetic tools for in vivo somatic genome editing has recently overcome this limitation and led to the generation of more sophisticated and accurate preclinical models of human cancers. Here, we review the potential applications of these new technologies to the study of tumor biology and discuss their advantages over more conventional strategies, their limitations, and the remaining challenges. Cancer Res; 76(17); 4918-23. ©2016 AACR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.