Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28427863›Full record

ReviewTrends in molecular medicine2017

ROS in Cancer: The Burning Question.

Iok In Christine Chio, David A Tuveson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Trends in molecular medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 251 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
251citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
18.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

251 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 534 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. ROS and Antioxidants: Prospective Therapeutic Options in Cancer.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

191 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Iok In Christine ChioCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724, USA; Lustgarten Foundation Pancreatic Cancer Research Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724, USA. Electronic address: cchio@cshl.edu.
David A TuvesonCold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724, USA; Lustgarten Foundation Pancreatic Cancer Research Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724, USA. Electronic address: dtuveson@cshl.edu.
Lustgarten Foundation · US

Funding

Single-Cell Biology Shared ResourceP30CA045508 · NCI · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI John Edward Moses · 1987 to 2026
$118.9M
UAB / UMN SPORE in Pancreatic CancerP50CA101955 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI KLUG, CHRISTOPHER · 2010 to 2014
$11.1M
COMPUTATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES TO VALIDATING CANCER GENOME TARGETSU01CA168409 · NCI · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI POWERS, SCOTT · 2012 to 2016
$7.3M
Nrf2 Regulation of Ductal Pancreatic Cancer Etiology and Treatment ResponseR01CA188134 · NCI · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI TUVESON, DAVID A · 2017 to 2021
$3.0M
(PQA-4) Organoid Omics To Detect And Defeat Ductal Pancreatic CancerR01CA190092 · NCI · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI TUVESON, DAVID A · 2014 to 2017
$2.2M
Integrated Translational Cancer Science CenterU10CA180944 · NCI · COLD SPRING HARBOR LABORATORY · PI BAKER, LAURENCE HOWARD, LIU, EDISON TAK-BUN · 2014 to 2018
$2.0M
Mutant mouse models of exocrine pancreatic cancerR01CA101973 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI TUVESON, DAVID A · 2004 to 2008
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA045508NCI NIH HHS P50 CA101955NCI NIH HHS R01 CA101973NCI NIH HHS R01 CA188134NCI NIH HHS R01 CA190092NCI NIH HHS U01 CA168409NCI NIH HHS U10 CA180944
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An unanswered question in human health is whether antioxidation prevents or promotes cancer. Antioxidation has historically been viewed as chemopreventive, but emerging evidence suggests that antioxidants may be supportive of neoplasia. We posit this contention to be rooted in the fact that ROS do not operate as one single biochemical entity, but as diverse secondary messengers in cancer cells. This cautions against therapeutic strategies to increase ROS at a global level. To leverage redox alterations towards the development of effective therapies necessitates the application of biophysical and biochemical approaches to define redox dynamics and to functionally elucidate specific oxidative modifications in cancer versus normal cells. An improved understanding of the sophisticated workings of redox biology is imperative to defeating cancer.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntioxidantsHumansNeoplasmsOxidation-ReductionOxidative StressReactive Oxygen SpeciesAntioxidantsReactive Oxygen Species

Identifiers

PMID28427863
PMCPMC5462452
OpenAlexW2606686841

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.