Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29684198›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology and evolution2018

Neutral Theory and the Somatic Evolution of Cancer.

Vincent L Cannataro, Jeffrey P Townsend

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology and evolution, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. EarlybioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Reuniting philosophy and science to advance cancer research.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2023
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Cancer Relevance of Human Genes.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. DNA Methyltransferases and DNA Damage.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2022
    Article
  18. The somatic molecular evolution of cancer: Mutation, selection, and epistasis.Progress in biophysics and molecular biology · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Vincent L CannataroDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Jeffrey P TownsendDepartment of Biostatistics, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Yale University · US

Funding

Yale Cancer Biology Training GrantT32CA193200 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI PETER M GLAZER, Qin Yan · 2016 to 2026
$3.6M
EVOLUTIONARY BIOINFORMATICS OF TUMOR PROFILESR01LM012487 · NLM · TEMPLE UNIV OF THE COMMONWEALTH · PI KUMAR, SUDHIR · 2016 to 2018
$1.0M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA193200NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012487
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Kimura's neutral theory argued that positive selection was not responsible for an appreciable fraction of molecular substitutions. Correspondingly, quantitative analysis reveals that the vast majority of substitutions in cancer genomes are not detectably under selection. Insights from the somatic evolution of cancer reveal that beneficial substitutions in cancer constitute a small but important fraction of the molecular variants. The molecular evolution of cancer community will benefit by incorporating the neutral theory of molecular evolution into their understanding and analysis of cancer evolution-and accepting the use of tractable, predictive models, even when there is some evidence that they are not perfect.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenetic DriftAdaptation, BiologicalAnimalsHumansNeoplasmsSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID29684198
PMCPMC5967571
OpenAlexW2800632101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.