ArticleNature reviews. Cancer2017
Common pitfalls in preclinical cancer target validation.
Article in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 109 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
109 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Nelarabine in T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia: intracellular metabolism and molecular mode-of-action.Leukemia · 2025Pooled it
- Systematic literature review reveals suboptimal use of chemical probes in cell-based biomedical research.Nature communications · 2023Pooled it
- Meta-Analysis of Gene Popularity: Less Than Half of Gene Citations Stem from Gene Regulatory Networks.Genes · 2021Pooled it
- Positive selection screen identifies natural product β-catenin inactivators.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Oncogenic Gα signaling requires AP-3-dependent recruitment to the endolysosomal compartment.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Protocol for Measuring Drug-Target Engagement in Mouse Colorectal Cancer Organoids Using NanoBRET Assay.Bio-protocol · 2026Article
- Leveraging tumor dynamics to discover mutations influencing progression and treatment response for precision oncology.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- SMARCB1 missense mutants disrupt SWI/SNF complex stability and remodeling activity.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Towards interpretable prediction of recurrence risk in breast cancer using pathology foundation models.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- A chemical-genetic interaction between PAF1 and ENL/AF9 YEATS inhibition.RSC chemical biology · 2026Article
- Dysfunctional, Tissue-Resident, Very Small Embryonic-Like Stem Cells (VSELs) Initiate Cancer and Result in its Progression and Metastasis, Independent of Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2026Review
- Functional-genomic prioritization identifiesFrontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- The SLC1A1/EAAT3 dicarboxylic amino acid transporter is an epigenetically dysregulated nutrient carrier that sustains oncogenic metabolic programs.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Lineage plasticity and histological transformation: tumor histology as a spectrum.Cell research · 2025Review
- Meta-Research: Positive genetic interactions have greater scientific impact but are under-represented in the literature.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Chromatin Regulatory Targets for Anticancer Therapeutics.Chemical reviews · 2025Review
- Pharmacologic interrogation of USP28 cellular function in p53 signaling.Cell chemical biology · 2025Article
- Phenotypic screening converges on CDK9 inhibition as a therapeutic strategy in translocation renal cell carcinoma.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- MultiplexedbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Induction of the p21/CDK6 pathway and alteration of the immune microenvironment by the stem cell marker CBX3 in melanoma.Stem cell research & therapy · 2025Article
49 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An alarming number of papers from laboratories nominating new cancer drug targets contain findings that cannot be reproduced by others or are simply not robust enough to justify drug discovery efforts. This problem probably has many causes, including an underappreciation of the danger of being misled by off-target effects when using pharmacological or genetic perturbants in complex biological assays. This danger is particularly acute when, as is often the case in cancer pharmacology, the biological phenotype being measured is a 'down' readout (such as decreased proliferation, decreased viability or decreased tumour growth) that could simply reflect a nonspecific loss of cellular fitness. These problems are compounded by multiple hypothesis testing, such as when candidate targets emerge from high-throughput screens that interrogate multiple targets in parallel, and by a publication and promotion system that preferentially rewards positive findings. In this Perspective, I outline some of the common pitfalls in preclinical cancer target identification and some potential approaches to mitigate them.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28524181What 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.