Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28425940›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2017

Circadian Clock, Cell Division, and Cancer: From Molecules to Organism.

Anton Shostak

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

87 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 162 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Circadian clock and cancer.Military Medical Research · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

27 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anton ShostakCircadian Rhythms and Molecular Clocks Group, Heidelberg University Biochemistry Center, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany. anton.shostak@bzh.uni-heidelberg.de.
Heidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As a response to environmental changes driven by the Earth's axial rotation, most organisms evolved an internal biological timer-the so called circadian clock-which regulates physiology and behavior in a rhythmic fashion. Emerging evidence suggests an intimate interplay between the circadian clock and another fundamental rhythmic process, the cell cycle. However, the precise mechanisms of this connection are not fully understood. Disruption of circadian rhythms has a profound impact on cell division and cancer development and, vice versa, malignant transformation causes disturbances of the circadian clock. Conventional knowledge attributes tumor suppressor properties to the circadian clock. However, this implication might be context-dependent, since, under certain conditions, the clock can also promote tumorigenesis. Therefore, a better understanding of the molecular links regulating the physiological balance between the two cycles will have potential significance for the treatment of cancer and associated disorders.

Indexed as

Cell DivisionCircadian ClocksAnimalsCell CycleCell Transformation, NeoplasticCircadian RhythmGene Expression RegulationGene Regulatory NetworksHumansMutationNeoplasmscancercircadian disruptionclock-controlled genesproliferationthe cell cyclethe circadian clock

Identifiers

PMID28425940
PMCPMC5412454
OpenAlexW2606681577

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.