Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 292

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reevaluation of telomerase inhibition by quadruplex ligands and their mechanisms of action

Open access
De Cian, Anne, Cristofari, Gael, Reichenbach, Patrick, De Lemos, Elsa, Monchaud, David, Teulade-Fichou, Marie-Paule, Shin-ya, Kazuo, Lacroix, Laurent, Lingner, Joachim, Mergny, Jean-Louis·2007·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Quadruplex ligands are often considered as telomerase inhibitors. Given the fact that some of these molecules are present in the clinical setting, it is important to establish the validity of this assertion. To analyze the effects of these compounds, we used a direct assay with telomerase-enriched extracts. The comparison of potent ligands from various chemical families revealed important differences in terms of effects on telomerase initiation and processivity. Although most quadruplex ligands may lock a quadruplex-prone sequence into a quadruplex structure that inhibits the initiation of elongation by telomerase, the analysis of telomerase-elongation steps revealed that only a few molecules interfered with the processivity of telomerase (i.e., inhibit elongation once one or more repeats have been incorporated). The demonstration that these molecules are actually more effective inhibitors of telomeric DNA amplification than extension by telomerase contributes to the already growing suspicion that quadruplex ligands are not simple telomerase inhibitors but, rather, constitute a different class of biologically active molecules. We also demonstrate that the popular telomeric repeat amplification protocol is completely inappropriate for the determination of telomerase inhibition by quadruplex ligands, even when PCR controls are included. As a consequence, the inhibitory effect of many quadruplex ligands has been overestimated.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0707365104

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 28 references

Cited by

See all 292

Metadata

Authors
De Cian, A., Cristofari, G., Reichenbach, P., De Lemos, E., Monchaud, D., Teulade-Fichou, M.-P., Shin-ya, K., Lacroix, L., Lingner, J., & Mergny, J.-L.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2007-10-30
Volume
104
Issue
44
Pages
17347-17352
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1980382899
Cited by
292
References
28
FWCI
13.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reevaluation of telomerase inhibition by quadruplex ligands and their mechanisms of action. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.0707365104
The paper
De Cian, A., Cristofari, G., Reichenbach, P., De Lemos, E., Monchaud, D., Teulade-Fichou, M.-P., Shin-ya, K., Lacroix, L., Lingner, J., & Mergny, J.-L. (2007). Reevaluation of telomerase inhibition by quadruplex ligands and their mechanisms of action. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707365104

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.