Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28448462›Full record

ReviewCancers2017

Targeting the ATR-CHK1 Axis in Cancer Therapy.

Stuart Rundle, Alice Bradbury, Yvette Drew, Nicola J Curtin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

135 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Therapeutic Targeting of DNA Damage Response Pathways inBrain tumor research and treatment · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Potential promising of synthetic lethality in cancer research and treatment.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

75 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

4 authors.

Stuart RundleNorthern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK. S.Rundle2@newcastle.ac.uk.
Alice BradburyNorthern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK. a.bradbury@newcastle.ac.uk.
Yvette DrewNorthern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK. yvette.drew@newcastle.ac.uk.
Nicola J CurtinNorthern Institute for Cancer Research, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH, UK. nicola.curtin@ncl.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Targeting the DNA damage response (DDR) is a new therapeutic approach in cancer that shows great promise for tumour selectivity. Key components of the DDR are the ataxia telangiectasia mutated and Rad3 related (ATR) and checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) kinases. This review article describes the role of ATR and its major downstream target, CHK1, in the DDR and why cancer cells are particularly reliant on the ATR-CHK1 pathway, providing the rationale for targeting these kinases, and validation of this hypothesis by genetic manipulation. The recent development of specific inhibitors and preclinical data using these inhibitors not only as chemosensitisers and radiosensitisers but also as single agents to exploit specific pathologies of tumour cells is described. These potent and specific inhibitors have now entered clinical trial and early results are presented.

Indexed as

ATRcell cyclechemotherapy-sensitising-agentsCHK1DNA-damageDNA-repairprotein-kinase-inhibitorsradiation-sensitising-agents

Identifiers

PMID28448462
PMCPMC5447951

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.