ArticlePeerJ2020
A unified simulation model for understanding the diversity of cancer evolution.
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- tugMedi: simulator of cancer-cell evolution for personalized medicine based on the genomic data of patients.NPJ systems biology and applications · 2026Article
- Single-dose DSS-induced inflammation enhances colorectal tumorigenesis in APC and KRAS mutant mice.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- DICE: fast and accurate distance-based reconstruction of single-cell copy number phylogenies.Life science alliance · 2025Article
- A modelling framework for cancer ecology and evolution.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
- Searching for the Metabolic Signature of Cancer: A Review from Warburg's Time to Now.Biomolecules · 2022Review
- Modeling colorectal cancer evolution.Journal of human genetics · 2021Review
- Editorial: Big Data Analytics for Precision Health and Prevention.Frontiers in big data · 2021Article
- Mathematical Modeling of MPNs Offers Understanding and Decision Support for Personalized Treatment.Cancers · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Because cancer evolution underlies the therapeutic difficulties of cancer, it is clinically important to understand the evolutionary dynamics of cancer. Thus far, a number of evolutionary processes have been proposed to be working in cancer evolution. However, there exists no simulation model that can describe the different evolutionary processes in a unified manner. In this study, we constructed a unified simulation model for describing the different evolutionary processes and performed sensitivity analysis on the model to determine the conditions in which cancer growth is driven by each of the different evolutionary processes. Our sensitivity analysis has successfully provided a series of novel insights into the evolutionary dynamics of cancer. For example, we found that, while a high neutral mutation rate shapes neutral intratumor heterogeneity (ITH) characterized by a fractal-like pattern, a stem cell hierarchy can also contribute to shaping neutral ITH by apparently increasing the mutation rate. Although It has been reported that the evolutionary principle shaping ITH shifts from selection to accumulation of neutral mutations during colorectal tumorigenesis, our simulation revealed the possibility that this evolutionary shift is triggered by drastic evolutionary events that occur in a short time and confer a marked fitness increase on one or a few cells. This result helps us understand that each process works not separately but simultaneously and continuously as a series of phases of cancer evolution. Collectively, this study serves as a basis to understand in greater depth the diversity of cancer 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.