Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35513493›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Immunology2022

Tumour immunotherapy: lessons from predator-prey theory.

Phineas T Hamilton, Bradley R Anholt, Brad H Nelson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. The theory of tumor immuno-ecodynamics.Frontiers in immunology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Single Cell-Pair Proteomics for Decoding Immune-Cancer Cell Interactions.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Phineas T HamiltonDeeley Research Centre, BC Cancer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6993-8505
Bradley R AnholtDepartment of Biology, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-9642-4489
Brad H NelsonDeeley Research Centre, BC Cancer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. bnelson@bccrc.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-4445-5539
University of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Victoria · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the burgeoning use of immune-based treatments for cancer, never has there been a greater need to understand the tumour microenvironment within which immune cells function and how it can be perturbed to inhibit tumour growth. Yet, current challenges in identifying optimal combinations of immunotherapies and engineering new cell-based therapies highlight the limitations of conventional paradigms for the study of the tumour microenvironment. Ecology has a rich history of studying predator-prey dynamics to discern factors that drive prey to extinction. Here, we describe the basic tenets of predator-prey theory as applied to 'predation' by immune cells and the 'extinction' of cancer cells. Our synthesis reveals fundamental mechanisms by which antitumour immunity might fail in sometimes counterintuitive ways and provides a fresh yet evidence-based framework to better understand and therapeutically target the immune-cancer interface.

Indexed as

Food ChainModels, BiologicalAnimalsHumansImmunotherapyPredatory Behavior

Identifiers

PMID35513493
OpenAlexW4229029322

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.