ReviewFrontiers in genetics2019
The Mutator Phenotype: Adapting Microbial Evolution to Cancer Biology.
Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of the Type and Degree of Genomic Instability in Gliomas.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Termination of DNA replication drives genomic instability via multiple mechanisms.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Signification and Application of Mutator and Antimutator Phenotype-Induced Genetic Variations in Evolutionary Adaptation and Cancer Therapeutics.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2023Review
- From the Catastrophic Objective Irreproducibility of Cancer Research and Unavoidable Failures of Molecular Targeted Therapies to the Sparkling Hope of Supramolecular Targeted Strategies.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Nanomolar EP4 receptor potency and expression of eicosanoid-related enzymes in normal appearing colonic mucosa from patients with colorectal neoplasia.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Antitumor Drugs and Their Targets.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The mutator phenotype hypothesis was postulated almost 40 years ago to reconcile the observation that while cancer cells display widespread mutational burden, acquisition of mutations in non-transformed cells is a rare event. Moreover, it also suggested that cancer evolution could be fostered by increased genome instability. Given the evolutionary conservation throughout the tree of life and the genetic tractability of model organisms, yeast and bacterial species pioneered studies to dissect the functions of genes required for genome maintenance (caretaker genes) or for cell growth control (gatekeeper genes). In this review, we first provide an overview of what we learned from model organisms about the roles of these genes and the genome instability that arises as a consequence of their dysregulation. We then discuss our current understanding of how mutator phenotypes shape the evolution of bacteria and yeast species. We end by bringing clinical evidence that lessons learned from single-cell organisms can be applied to tumor evolution.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.