Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31519690›Full record

ReviewDisease models & mechanisms2019

Experimental models and tools to tackle glioblastoma.

Faye L Robertson, Maria-Angeles Marqués-Torrejón, Gillian M Morrison, Steven M Pollard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Disease models & mechanisms, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

4 authors.

Faye L RobertsonMRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine and Edinburgh Cancer Research UK Cancer Centre, University of Edinburgh, 5 Little France Drive, Edinburgh EH16 4UU, UK.
Maria-Angeles Marqués-TorrejónMRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine and Edinburgh Cancer Research UK Cancer Centre, University of Edinburgh, 5 Little France Drive, Edinburgh EH16 4UU, UK.
Gillian M MorrisonMRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine and Edinburgh Cancer Research UK Cancer Centre, University of Edinburgh, 5 Little France Drive, Edinburgh EH16 4UU, UK.
Steven M PollardMRC Centre for Regenerative Medicine and Edinburgh Cancer Research UK Cancer Centre, University of Edinburgh, 5 Little France Drive, Edinburgh EH16 4UU, UK steven.pollard@ed.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-6428-0492

Funding

Cancer Research UK 17368Cancer Research UK A19778Cancer Research UK A21992
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is one of the deadliest human cancers. Despite increasing knowledge of the genetic and epigenetic changes that underlie tumour initiation and growth, the prognosis for GBM patients remains dismal. Genome analysis has failed to lead to success in the clinic. Fresh approaches are needed that can stimulate new discoveries across all levels: cell-intrinsic mechanisms (transcriptional/epigenetic and metabolic), cell-cell signalling, niche and microenvironment, systemic signals, immune regulation, and tissue-level physical forces. GBMs are inherently extremely challenging: tumour detection occurs too late, and cells infiltrate widely, hiding in quiescent states behind the blood-brain barrier. The complexity of the brain tissue also provides varied and complex microenvironments that direct cancer cell fates. Phenotypic heterogeneity is therefore superimposed onto pervasive genetic heterogeneity. Despite this bleak outlook, there are reasons for optimism. A myriad of complementary, and increasingly sophisticated, experimental approaches can now be used across the research pipeline, from simple reductionist models devised to delineate molecular and cellular mechanisms, to complex animal models required for preclinical testing of new therapeutic approaches. No single model can cover the breadth of unresolved questions. This Review therefore aims to guide investigators in choosing the right model for their question. We also discuss the recent convergence of two key technologies: human stem cell and cancer stem cell culture, as well as CRISPR/Cas tools for precise genome manipulations. New functional genetic approaches in tailored models will likely fuel new discoveries, new target identification and new therapeutic strategies to tackle GBM.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAnimalsBrain NeoplasmsGenetic EngineeringGlioblastomaHumansNeoplasm TransplantationNeoplastic Stem CellsBrain tumourCancerCentral nervous systemCRISPR/Cas9GBMHumanIn vitroMouseXenograft

Identifiers

PMID31519690
PMCPMC6765190

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.