ArticleBiomolecules2022
Paradoxical Behavior of Oncogenes Undermines the Somatic Mutation Theory.
Article in Biomolecules, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systemic Alterations of Cancer Cells and Their Boost by Polyploidization: Unicellular Attractor (UCA) Model.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Colibactin-associated mutations in the human colon appear to reflect anatomy and early exposure, not oncogenesis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- CpG Methylation-Driven Pleiotropic Spliced Isoforms of PRSS3 Facilitate Gastric Intratumor Heterogeneity and Metastasis.Cancer science · 2026Article
- The end of the genetic paradigm of cancer.PLoS biology · 2025Review
- Cancer research and the mainstream of biology.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Initiation of Cancer: The Journey From Mutations in Somatic Cells to Epigenetic Changes in Tissue-resident VSELs.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2024Review
- Mitochondrial-Stem Cell Connection: Providing Additional Explanations for Understanding Cancer.Metabolites · 2024Article
- Long non-coding RNAs are involved in the crosstalk between cancer-associated fibroblasts and tumor cells.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Pareto task inference analysis reveals cellular trade-offs in diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma transcriptomic data.Frontiers in systems biology · 2024Article
- Systems Biology and Omics Approaches for Complex Human Diseases.Biomolecules · 2023Article
- Recent Advancement in Breast Cancer Research: Insights from Model Organisms-Mouse Models to Zebrafish.Cancers · 2023Review
- Is Cancer Reversible? Rethinking Carcinogenesis Models-A New Epistemological Tool.Biomolecules · 2023Review
- The Double-Edged Proteins in Cancer Proteomes and the Generation of Induced Tumor-Suppressing Cells (iTSCs).Proteomes · 2023Review
- Very small embryonic-like stem cells have the potential to win the three-front war on tissue damage, cancer, and aging.Frontiers in cell and developmental 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The currently accepted theory on the influence of DNA mutations on carcinogenesis (the Somatic Mutation Theory, SMT) is facing an increasing number of controversial results that undermine the explanatory power of mutated genes considered as "causative" factors. Intriguing results have demonstrated that several critical genes may act differently, as oncogenes or tumor suppressors, while phenotypic reversion of cancerous cells/tissues can be achieved by modifying the microenvironment, the mutations they are carrying notwithstanding. Furthermore, a high burden of mutations has been identified in many non-cancerous tissues without any apparent pathological consequence. All things considered, a relevant body of unexplained inconsistencies calls for an in depth rewiring of our theoretical models. Ignoring these paradoxes is no longer sustainable. By avoiding these conundrums, the scientific community will deprive itself of the opportunity to achieve real progress in this important biomedical field. To remedy this situation, we need to embrace new theoretical perspectives, taking the cell-microenvironment interplay as the privileged pathogenetic level of observation, and by assuming new explanatory models based on truly different premises. New theoretical frameworks dawned in the last two decades principally focus on the complex interaction between cells and their microenvironment, which is thought to be the critical level from which carcinogenesis arises. Indeed, both molecular and biophysical components of the stroma can dramatically drive cell fate commitment and cell outcome in opposite directions, even in the presence of the same stimulus. Therefore, such a novel approach can help in solving apparently inextricable paradoxes that are increasingly observed in cancer biology.
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.