Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28409123›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2017

Autophagy and the Cell Cycle: A Complex Landscape.

Søs Grønbæk Mathiassen, Daniela De Zio, Francesco Cecconi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 130 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
130citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

130 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Regulation of autophagy-mediated pathways by diet, physical activity, and sleep in Alzheimer's disease.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

70 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Søs Grønbæk MathiassenCell Stress and Survival Unit, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Daniela De ZioCell Stress and Survival Unit, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Francesco CecconiCell Stress and Survival Unit, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Autophagy is a self-degradation pathway, in which cytoplasmic material is sequestered in double-membrane vesicles and delivered to the lysosome for degradation. Under basal conditions, autophagy plays a homeostatic function. However, in response to various stresses, the pathway can be further induced to mediate cytoprotection. Defective autophagy has been linked to a number of human pathologies, including neoplastic transformation, even though autophagy can also sustain the growth of tumor cells in certain contexts. In recent years, a considerable correlation has emerged between autophagy induction and stress-related cell-cycle responses, as well as unexpected roles for autophagy factors and selective autophagic degradation in the process of cell division. These advances have obvious implications for our understanding of the intricate relationship between autophagy and cancer. In this review, we will discuss our current knowledge of the reciprocal regulation connecting the autophagy pathway and cell-cycle progression. Furthermore, key findings involving nonautophagic functions for autophagy-related factors in cell-cycle regulation will be addressed.

Indexed as

autophagycancercell cyclecell stresscytokinesismitosisp53senescence

Identifiers

PMID28409123
PMCPMC5374984

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.