ArticleEvolutionary applications2022
Cancer suppression and the evolution of multiple retrogene copies of TP53 in elephants: A re-evaluation.
Article in Evolutionary applications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanistic Insights into Wildlife Cancer and Conservation Strategies Under the One Health Framework.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- When cells rebel: a comparative genomics investigation into marsupial cancer susceptibility.Molecular biology and evolution · 2026Article
- Elephant-derivedFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Understanding Functional Evolution in Orthologs and Paralogs.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Review
- Advancing cancer research via comparative oncology.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2025Review
- Towards a more robust comparative oncology: a Bayesian reanalysis of Peto's paradox and discussion of comparative cancer risk studies in vertebrates.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Variable Gene Copy Number in Cancer-Related Pathways Is Associated With Cancer Prevalence Across Mammals.Molecular biology and evolution · 2025Article
- Analysis of Cancer-Resisting Evolutionary Adaptations in Wild Animals and Applications for Human Oncology.Journal of molecular evolution · 2024Review
- A Reexamination of Peto's Paradox: Insights Gained from Human Adaptation to Varied Levels of Ionizing and Non-ionizing Radiation.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2024Article
- The molecular evolution of cancer associated genes in mammals.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Oncogenic BRCA1,2 Mutations in the Human Lineage-A By-Product of Sexual Selection?Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Chance, ignorance, and the paradoxes of cancer: Richard Peto on developing preventative strategies under uncertainty.European journal of epidemiology · 2023Article
- Establishment of Primary Adult Skin Fibroblast Cell Lines from African Savanna Elephants (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Ancient segmentally duplicated LCORL retrocopies in equids.PloS one · 2023Article
- Cancer suppression and the evolution of multiple retrogene copies of TP53 in elephants: A re-evaluation.Evolutionary applications · 2022Article
- A phylogenetic review of cancer resistance highlights evolutionary solutions to Peto's Paradox.Genetics and molecular biology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evolving to become bigger and/or longer lived should increase cancer susceptibility, but this predicted increase is not observed, a contradiction named Peto's paradox. A solution is that cancer suppression evolves to minimize cancer susceptibility, and the discovery of 19 retrogene (RTG) copies of the tumor suppressor gene TP53 in the African elephant (
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.