ReviewInternational journal of nanomedicine2024
Bacteria-Based Nanoprobes for Cancer Therapy.
Review in International journal of nanomedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Engineered bacterial therapeutics from synthetic biology to clinical translation: A multi-database scientometric analysis, 2000-2026.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2026Review
- Microbial medicines: Unlocking the therapeutic potential of the microbiome in cancer treatment.Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2026Review
- Bacteria-powered LA@CaDGP biomotor: a multi-modal weapon integrating calcium overload, chemotherapy, and starvation for breast cancer therapy.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Article
- Molecular mechanisms of bacteria-mediated cancer immunotherapy: from intratumoral microbiota to engineered therapeutics.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Microbiome-targeted nanoplatforms and engineering approaches in breast cancer therapy.Molecular cancer · 2025Review
- Genetically engineered gas vesicle proteins with proliferative potential for synergistic targeted tumor therapy.RSC advances · 2025Article
- Enhancing photothermal therapy of tumors with image-guided thermal control of gene-expressing bacteria.Theranostics · 2024Article
- Bacterial nanotechnology as a paradigm in targeted cancer therapeutic delivery and immunotherapy.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Surgical removal together with chemotherapy and radiotherapy has used to be the pillars of cancer treatment. Although these traditional methods are still considered as the first-line or standard treatments, non-operative situation, systemic toxicity or resistance severely weakened the therapeutic effect. More recently, synthetic biological nanocarriers elicited substantial interest and exhibited promising potential for combating cancer. In particular, bacteria and their derivatives are omnipotent to realize intrinsic tumor targeting and inhibit tumor growth with anti-cancer agents secreted and immune response. They are frequently employed in synergistic bacteria-mediated anticancer treatments to strengthen the effectiveness of anti-cancer treatment. In this review, we elaborate on the development, mechanism and advantage of bacterial therapy against cancer and then systematically introduce the bacteria-based nanoprobes against cancer and the recent achievements in synergistic treatment strategies and clinical trials. We also discuss the advantages as well as the limitations of these bacteria-based nanoprobes, especially the questions that hinder their application in human, exhibiting this novel anti-cancer endeavor comprehensively.
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.