Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30659234›Full record

ReviewCell death and differentiation2019

The good, the bad and the autophagosome: exploring unanswered questions of autophagy-dependent cell death.

Jurgen Kriel, Ben Loos

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cell death and differentiation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.0field-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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 124 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

8 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.

Jurgen KrielDepartment of Physiological Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, 7600, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7558-7916
Ben LoosDepartment of Physiological Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, 7600, South Africa. bloos@sun.ac.za.
Stellenbosch University · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The recent discovery of autosis as a variant of autophagy-dependent cell death has challenged the conventional understanding of cell death and programmed cell death in cellular decision making. In contrast to previous accounts of distinct cell death modalities, autosis occurs with high autophagic activity, in the absence of apoptotic and necrotic markers and yet is not fully regulated by typical autophagy markers. Given the metabolic importance of autophagic responses and the extensive cross-talk with both apoptosis and necrosis signalling, the classical and morphotype-driven characterization of cell death as pre-determined subroutines is being increasingly called into question. Furthermore, the conflicting evidence with regards to cell death induction through autophagy modulation in various cancer models highlights the lack of consensus over the extent to which autophagy assists in cell death ontrol and whether it is capable of being a bona fide lethal process. This review evaluates the evidence and context of autophagy-dependent cell death and delineates the role of an autophagic flux threshold associated with 'lethal' and 'non-lethal' autophagy and its role in autosis control. In doing so, cancer treatment avenues will be explored with regards to precision modulation of tumour autophagic flux to ascertain whether autosis induction may present a novel therapeutic strategy.

Indexed as

ApoptosisAutophagic Cell DeathAutophagosomesAutophagyHumansNecrosisNeoplasmsSignal Transduction

Identifiers

PMID30659234
PMCPMC6460391
OpenAlexW2911116916

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.