The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The cell cycle and cancer
Abstract
Deregulation of the cell cycle underlies the aberrant cell proliferation that characterizes cancer and loss of cell cycle checkpoint control promotes genetic instability. During the past two decades, cancer genetics has shown that hyperactivating mutations in growth signalling networks, coupled to loss of function of tumour suppressor proteins, drives oncogenic proliferation. Gene expression profiling of these complex and redundant mitogenic pathways to identify prognostic and predictive signatures and their therapeutic targeting has, however, proved challenging. The cell cycle machinery, which acts as an integration point for information transduced through upstream signalling networks, represents an alternative target for diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. Analysis of the DNA replication initiation machinery and mitotic engine proteins in human tissues is now leading to the identification of novel biomarkers for cancer detection and prognostication, and is providing target validation for cell cycle‐directed therapies. Copyright © 2011 Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next Generation
Hanahan, D., & Weinberg, R. A. (2011) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013 · Cited by 66,590
Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer
van 't Veer, L. J., Dai, H., van de Vijver, M. J., He, Y. D., Hart, A. A. M., Mao, M., Peterse, H. L., van der Kooy, K., Marton, M. J., Witteveen, A. T., et al. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/415530a · Cited by 9,536
EGFR Mutations in Lung Cancer: Correlation with Clinical Response to Gefitinib Therapy
Paez, J. G., Jänne, P. A., Lee, J. C., Tracy, S., Greulich, H., Gabriel, S., Herman, P., Kaye, F. J., Lindeman, N., Boggon, T. J., et al. (2004) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1099314 · Cited by 9,368
Cell cycle, CDKs and cancer: a changing paradigm
Malumbres, M., & Barbacid, M. (2009) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc2602 · Cited by 3,957 · cited 2×
“This releases the brakes on cell cycle progression, and further abrogation of checkpoint control mechanisms leads to the acquisition of genomic instability, which drives tumour evolution [12].”
BackgroundThe spindle-assembly checkpoint in space and time
Musacchio, A., & Salmon, E. D. (2007) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/nrm2163 · Cited by 2,227
The Rb/E2F pathway: expanding roles and emerging paradigms
Harbour, J. W., & Dean, D. C. (2000) · Genes & Development · doi:10.1101/gad.813200 · Cited by 1,153
Checking on DNA damage in S phase
Bartek, J., Lukas, C., & Lukas, J. (2004) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/nrm1493 · Cited by 758
Cited by
Piao, J., Zabierowski, S., Dubose, B. N., Hill, E. J., Navare, M., Claros, N., Rosen, S., Ramnarine, K., Horn, C., Fredrickson, C., et al. (2021) · Cell Stem Cell · doi:10.1016/j.stem.2021.01.004 · Cited by 240
Kim, J.-Y., Jeong, H. S., Chung, T., Kim, M., Lee, J. H., Jung, W. H., & Koo, J. S. (2017) · Oncotarget · doi:10.18632/oncotarget.17775 · Cited by 115
Liu, H., Karsidag, M., Chhatwal, K., Wang, P., & Tang, T. (2025) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314745 · Cited by 48
Allan, G., Ouadid-Ahidouch, H., Sanchez-Fernandez, E. M., Risquez-Cuadro, R., Fernandez, J. M. G., Ortiz-Mellet, C., & Ahidouch, A. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076411 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Williams, G. H., & Stoeber, K.
- Venue
- The Journal of Pathology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-10-28
- Volume
- 226
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 352-364
- ISSN
- 0022-3417 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-9896
- OpenAlex
- W2120343162
- Cited by
- 661
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 11.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
