Cited by 3,399Cell death mechanisms and regulationAutophagy in Disease and TherapyDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning

Classification of cell death: recommendations of the Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death 2009

Open access
Kroemer, G, Galluzzi, L, Vandenabeele, P, Abrams, J, Alnemri, E S, Baehrecke, E H, Blagosklonny, M V, El-Deiry, W S +14 more·2009·Cell Death & Differentiation

Abstract

Different types of cell death are often defined by morphological criteria, without a clear reference to precise biochemical mechanisms. The Nomenclature Committee on Cell Death (NCCD) proposes unified criteria for the definition of cell death and of its different morphologies, while formulating several caveats against the misuse of words and concepts that slow down progress in the area of cell death research. Authors, reviewers and editors of scientific periodicals are invited to abandon expressions like 'percentage apoptosis' and to replace them with more accurate descriptions of the biochemical and cellular parameters that are actually measured. Moreover, at the present stage, it should be accepted that caspase-independent mechanisms can cooperate with (or substitute for) caspases in the execution of lethal signaling pathways and that 'autophagic cell death' is a type of cell death occurring together with (but not necessarily by) autophagic vacuolization. This study details the 2009 recommendations of the NCCD on the use of cell death-related terminology including 'entosis', 'mitotic catastrophe', 'necrosis', 'necroptosis' and 'pyroptosis'.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/cdd.2008.150

Cites

100 of 100 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Caspase activity can lead to proteolytic destruction of immunodominant epitopes.

    “for example, caspase activity can lead to the proteolytic destruction of immunodominant epitopes57.”

    From Immunogenic and tolerogenic cell death (2009) · cites this paper as [57]

  • Macroautophagy is typically a protective and anti-apoptotic mechanism, and therefore autophagic cell death may involve hyper-activation of a normally beneficial process.

    “Notably, macroautophagy is typically a protective and anti-apoptotic mechanism, and therefore autophagic cell death may involve hyper-activation of a normally beneficial process.”

    From Programmed cell death in aging (2015) · cites this paper as Kroemer et al., 2009

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 101 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kroemer, G., Galluzzi, L., Vandenabeele, P., Abrams, J., Alnemri, E. S., Baehrecke, E. H., Blagosklonny, M. V., El-Deiry, W. S., Golstein, P., Green, D. R., Hengartner, M., Knight, R. A., Kumar, S., Lipton, S. A., Malorni, W., Nuñez, G., Peter, M. E., Tschopp, J., Yuan, J., Piacentini, M., Zhivotovsky, B., & Melino, G.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Université Paris-Sud (FR)
  • Vlaams Instituut voor Biotechnologie (BE)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Thomas Jefferson University (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • Albany Research Institute (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • St. Jude Children's Research Hospital (US)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • University College London (GB)
  • Hanson Institute (AU)
  • Salk Institute for Biological Studies (US)
  • Istituto Superiore di Sanità (IT)
  • University of Chicago (US)
  • University of Lausanne (CH)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • University of Rome Tor Vergata (IT)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
Kroemer, G
Venue
Cell Death & Differentiation
Published
2008-10-10
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
3-11
ISSN
  • 1350-9047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-5403
OpenAlex
W1976881265
Cited by
3,399
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 100 · 2023: 151 · 2022: 137 · 2021: 171 · 2020: 161 · 2019: 165 · 2018: 188 · 2017: 210 · 2016: 236 · 2015: 230 · 2014: 256 · 2013: 254 · 2012: 240
FWCI
95.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell Death and Differentiation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Eye Institute (R01EY005477)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R56GM072124, R01GM059136, R01GM079431)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Cell death mechanisms and regulation
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Autophagy in Disease and Therapy
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Death, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Keywords
apoptosis, necrosis, necroptosis, pyroptosis, mitotic catastrophe, entosis, autophagic cell death, caspase-independent cell death
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Cell Death

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