Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32719324›Full record

ReviewCell death & disease2020

Bioactive DNA from extracellular vesicles and particles.

Ethan Z Malkin, Scott V Bratman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cell death & disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 134 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
134citing papers in PubMed
–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

134 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 80 years of extracellular vesicles: from discovery to clinical translation.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2026
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Exosome: an overview on enhanced biogenesis by small molecules.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025
    Review

74 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.

Ethan Z MalkinDepartment of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7468-9192
Scott V BratmanDepartment of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. scott.bratman@rmp.uhn.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8610-4908

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) and particles (EPs) have recently emerged as active carriers of molecular biomarkers and mediators of intercellular communication. While most investigations have focused exclusively on the protein, lipid and RNA constituents of these extracellular entities, EV/EP DNA remains poorly understood, despite DNA being found in association with virtually all EV/EP populations. The functional potential of EV/EP DNA has been proposed in a number of pathological states, including malignancies and autoimmune diseases. Moreover, the effectiveness of cell-free DNA as the biomarker of choice in emerging liquid biopsy applications highlights the role that EV/EP DNA may play as a novel disease biomarker. In this review, we provide a comprehensive overview of EV/EP DNA studies conducted to date, with a particular focus on the roles of EV/EP DNA as a functional mediator and molecular biomarker in various pathologic states. We also review what is currently known about the origins, structure, localisation and distribution of EV/EP DNA, highlighting current controversies as well as opportunities for future investigation.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiomarkersBiophysical PhenomenaDNAExtracellular VesiclesHumansModels, BiologicalBiomarkersDNA

Identifiers

PMID32719324
PMCPMC7385258

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.