Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42828750›Full record

ReviewSTAR protocols2026

Modeling human tumor evolution in mice.

Dale M Watt, Louise E Mitchell, S Leah Etheridge, Philip D Dunne, Daniel J Murphy, Karen Blyth

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in STAR protocols, 2026. 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

6 authors.

Dale M WattCancer Research UK Scotland Institute, Garscube Estate, Switchback Road, Glasgow G61 1BD, UK.
Louise E MitchellCancer Research UK Scotland Institute, Garscube Estate, Switchback Road, Glasgow G61 1BD, UK.
S Leah EtheridgeCentre for Blood Research, Department of Biology, University of York, Heslington, UK.
Philip D DunneCancer Research UK Scotland Institute, Garscube Estate, Switchback Road, Glasgow G61 1BD, UK; The Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
Daniel J MurphyCancer Research UK Scotland Institute, Garscube Estate, Switchback Road, Glasgow G61 1BD, UK; School of Cancer Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G61 1QH, UK.
Karen BlythCancer Research UK Scotland Institute, Garscube Estate, Switchback Road, Glasgow G61 1BD, UK; School of Cancer Sciences, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G61 1QH, UK. Electronic address: karen.blyth@glasgow.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer develops through an evolutionary process driven by mutation and selective pressures imposed by the microenvironment. To be translationally relevant, experimental models must recapitulate these clinical complexities. In this Primer, we consider how different mouse-modeling strategies can be aligned with human tumor evolution, focusing on mutation order, the emergence and competition of initially rare mutant clones within genetically mosaic tissues, and microenvironmental context. By comparing conventional genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs), transplant-based models, and emerging tools such as somatic editing and the tandem arrayed regulator (TAR) allele system, we offer a guide for selecting the most appropriate mouse model to address specific evolutionary questions.

Indexed as

CancerModel OrganismsNMGN Focused Collection

Identifiers

PMID42828750
PMCPMC13660640

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.