Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29263785›Full record

ReviewF1000Research2017

Senescence and tumor suppression.

Philip Hinds, Jodie Pietruska

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in F1000Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Skin Cancer Microenvironment: What We Can Learn from Skin Aging?International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  14. Spotlight onGenes · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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.

Philip HindsDepartment of Developmental, Molecular, and Chemical Biology, Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9868-9613
Jodie PietruskaDepartment of Developmental, Molecular, and Chemical Biology, Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
Tufts University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cellular senescence has emerged as a potent tumor suppression mechanism that restrains proliferation of cells at risk for malignant transformation. Although senescent cells have permanently exited the cell cycle, their presence can have detrimental effects on the surrounding tissue, largely due to the development of the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP). Here, we review the tumor-suppressive and tumor-promoting consequences of the senescence response, focusing on the SASP as a key mediator of this dichotomy. Accumulating evidence suggests that the persistence of senescent cells can exacerbate the development of a pro-inflammatory, immunosuppressive microenvironment that can favor tumorigenesis. Given that senescence of tumor and stromal cells is a frequent outcome of anti-cancer therapy, approaches that harness the growth inhibitory effects of senescence while limiting its detrimental effects are likely to have great clinical potential.

Indexed as

Cellular senescencetumor suppression mechanism

Identifiers

PMID29263785
PMCPMC5730862
OpenAlexW2771106990

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.