Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40660628›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025

Nuclear destabilisation - a possible genesis of cancer?

Daniel D Scott, Francesco Bettariga, Marco Ventin, Chris Bishop, Britta Stordal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Daniel D ScottLondon Sport Institute, Faculty of Science & Technology, Middlesex University, London, NW4 4BT, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-9838-3925
Francesco BettarigaExercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Prilep Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia, 6027, Australia.
Marco VentinDepartment of Surgery, Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, 90048, USA.
Chris BishopLondon Sport Institute, Faculty of Science & Technology, Middlesex University, London, NW4 4BT, UK.
Britta StordalDepartment of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Science & Technology, Middlesex University, London, NW4 4BT, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review examines the increasingly prominent role of mechanics within cancer formation and progression. The extremely varied and contradictory genetic landscape of cancer is in stark contrast to the seemingly universal mechanical characteristics of cancer cells and their tumour microenvironment, and mechanics may be a principal unifying trait of this disease. The tight regulation of innate cell mechanical properties raises the possibility that destabilisation of the cell drives tumour formation in an attempt to restore cell mechanical homeostasis. With losses in cell stiffness more pronounced at the cell nucleus, we hypothesise that destabilisation occurs within the nucleus, likely within the nucleosome. Beyond the mechanical properties of the cell, this compromise to the chromatin structure holds significant repercussions for both genetic and epigenetic regulation, providing scope for significant genetic dysregulation and mutation. However, the nature of such genetic events will be dependent upon the region of mechanical destabilisation; thus, introducing greater variability and heterogeneity to genetic changes. We conclude with the hypothesis that cancer has a mechanical genesis, in which cell nuclear destabilisation functions as the enabling hallmark of cancer. It is theorised that both genetic and structural dysfunction stem from this nuclear destabilisation, driving disease pathology and progression.

Indexed as

Cell NucleusNeoplasmsAnimalsHumanscancercell destabilisationcell mechanicschromatinmechanical genesisnucleosome

Identifiers

PMID40660628
PMCPMC12586295

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.