Cited by 3,233Cancer, Hypoxia, and MetabolismMetabolism, Diabetes, and CancerCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 144 of the 145 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 80 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Metabolic Reprogramming: A Cancer Hallmark Even Warburg Did Not Anticipate

Open access

Abstract

Cancer metabolism has long been equated with aerobic glycolysis, seen by early biochemists as primitive and inefficient. Despite these early beliefs, the metabolic signatures of cancer cells are not passive responses to damaged mitochondria, but result from oncogene-directed metabolic reprogramming required to support anabolic growth. Recent evidence suggests that metabolites themselves can be oncogenic by altering cell signaling and blocking cellular differentiation. No longer can cancer-associated alterations in metabolism be viewed as an indirect response to cell proliferation and survival signals. We contend that altered metabolism has attained the status of a core hallmark of cancer.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This review argues that metabolic reprogramming is a core hallmark of cancer, driven by oncogenes and tumor suppressors to support anabolic growth rather than arising passively from mitochondrial damage. It highlights mitochondrial biosynthetic roles, PKM2 and other metabolic enzyme alterations, and oncometabolites such as 2HG that can disrupt epigenetics and differentiation.

Key findings

  • Altered metabolism is not merely a secondary response to proliferation signals; it results from active reprogramming by oncogenes and tumor suppressors and is selected during tumorigenesis. Most tumor mitochondria are not defective in oxidative phosphorylation, contrary to Warburg’s original hypothesis.
  • PI3K/Akt/mTORC1 and Myc reprogram mitochondrial metabolism for biosynthesis: Akt activates ACL to divert mitochondrial citrate to acetyl-CoA, mTORC1 promotes mitochondrial biogenesis and SREBP-mediated lipogenesis, and Myc enhances glutaminase expression and glutamine addiction. HIF-1 can inhibit PDH via PDK1, blocking glucose carbon entry into mitochondrial citrate and correlating with anti-proliferative effects in some contexts.
  • PKM2 is the predominant pyruvate kinase isoform in embryonic tissues and all cancer cells examined to date; it has intrinsically lower enzymatic activity than PKM1 and is sensitive to tyrosine kinase inhibition, proposed to facilitate shunting of glycolytic intermediates into anabolic pathways. At least 11 proteins have been reported to bind PKM2.
  • IDH1/IDH2 mutations produce the oncometabolite 2HG, which inhibits α-ketoglutarate-dependent dioxygenases including TET enzymes and histone demethylases, altering DNA and histone methylation and impairing differentiation. IDH2 R140 mutations now account for nearly half of all cases of D-2HG aciduria; succinate and fumarate are also described as oncometabolites.

Methods

  • Design: Review article; no primary experimental design is reported.
  • Data or sample: Not stated in the paper as a primary dataset; the text synthesizes cited studies across cancer metabolism, oncogene/tumor suppressor signaling, metabolic enzyme isoforms, and oncometabolite biology.
  • Main analysis: Conceptual and literature-based synthesis arguing that metabolic reprogramming should be considered a core cancer hallmark.

Limitations

  • The paper states that current methods cannot reliably distinguish cytosolic metabolites from mitochondrial and other compartmentalized pools; fractionation methods often cause metabolite leakage, and distinct metabolite pools may exist due to enzyme channeling.
  • The paper states that quantitative measurement of metabolic flux remains challenging, including obstacles such as cellular compartmentalization and reliance on complex, incompletely defined cell culture media.
  • The paper states that non-cell autonomous effects of tumor metabolism are an emerging challenge, including lactate acidification, possible symbiosis between lactate-producing and lactate-consuming cells, and fatty acid exchange between omental adipocytes and ovarian carcinoma cells. The text also makes evident that unresolved issues remain, such as conflicting conclusions over whether reductive glutamine flux depends primarily on cytosolic IDH1 or mitochondrial IDH2, the role of 2HG in PHD2/HIF regulation, and which alternative NADPH-generating pathways are most important.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ccr.2012.02.014

Cites

144 of 144 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

63 Not checked yet · 39 Own interpretation · 13 No basis given

Verify all 80 references — free account

Show all 90 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 12
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 14
25 of 25

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Boros, 2000, Cancer Res., 60, 1183
  2. Choi, 2012, Nat Med.
  3. Eigenbrodt, 1983, Biomed. Biochim. Acta, 42, S278
  4. Ferraris, 1988, Am. J. Hum. Genet., 42, 516
  5. Lu, 2012, Nature
  6. Mazurek, 2007, Anticancer Res., 27, 3963
  7. Rempel, 1996, Cancer Res., 56, 2468
  8. Sonveaux, 2008, J. Clin. Invest., 118, 3930
  9. Tallal, 1970, Cancer, 25, 306, 10.1002/1097-0142(197002)25:2<306::aid-cncr2820250206>3.0.co;2-h · DOI
  10. Turcan, 2012, Nature
  11. Ward, 2011, Oncogene

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 3,233

Metadata

Authors
Ward, P. S., & Thompson, C. B.
Affiliations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Thompson, Craig B.
Venue
Cancer Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-03
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
297-308
ISSN
1535-6108 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052543023
Cited by
3,233
References
145
Citations by year
2026: 149 · 2025: 170 · 2024: 216 · 2023: 204 · 2022: 269 · 2021: 271 · 2020: 295 · 2019: 244 · 2018: 256 · 2017: 235 · 2016: 213 · 2015: 248 · 2014: 228 · 2013: 169 · 2012: 63
FWCI
17.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Cell (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Keywords
cancer metabolism, metabolic reprogramming, aerobic glycolysis, Warburg effect, anabolic metabolism, signal transduction, cell differentiation, cancer hallmarks, mitochondrial damage
MeSH terms
Cell Differentiation, Humans, Isoenzymes, Mitochondria, Models, Biological, Neoplasms, Biomarkers, Tumor, Signal Transduction, Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-myc, Alternative Splicing, Evolution, Molecular, Epigenesis, Genetic, Cell Proliferation

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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