Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36379964›Full record

ReviewNPJ precision oncology2022

Clinical prospects of WRN inhibition as a treatment for MSI tumours.

David A Morales-Juarez, Stephen P Jackson

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ precision oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Mechanisms and genomic implications of break-induced replication.Nature structural & molecular biology · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. WRN suppresses p53/PUMA-induced apoptosis in colorectal cancer with microsatellite instability/mismatch repair deficiency.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

David A Morales-JuarezWellcome and Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, and Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. dam71@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5370-5512
Stephen P JacksonWellcome and Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, and Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. spj13@cam.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9317-7937
University of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK (CRUK) DRCPGM\100005Wellcome Trust 206388/Z/17/ZWellcome Trust (Wellcome) 206388/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The discovery of synthetic lethal interactions with genetic deficiencies in cancers has highlighted several candidate targets for drug development, with variable clinical success. Recent work has unveiled a promising synthetic lethal interaction between inactivation/inhibition of the WRN DNA helicase and tumours with microsatellite instability, a phenotype that arises from DNA mismatch repair deficiency. While these and further studies have highlighted the therapeutic potential of WRN inhibitors, compounds with properties suitable for clinical exploitation remain to be described. Furthermore, the complexities of MSI development and its relationship to cancer evolution pose challenges for clinical prospects. Here, we discuss possible paths of MSI tumour development, the viability of WRN inhibition as a strategy in different scenarios, and the necessary conditions to create a roadmap towards successful implementation of WRN inhibitors in the clinic.

Identifiers

PMID36379964
PMCPMC9666358
OpenAlexW4309108489

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.