The DOI matches its Crossref record; 215 of the 290 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 72 are not checked yet; none of the 223 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Epigenetics and cancer
Open accessAbstract
Epigenetic mechanisms act to change the accessibility of chromatin to transcriptional regulation locally and globally via modifications of the DNA and by modification or rearrangement of nucleosomes. Epigenetic gene regulation collaborates with genetic alterations in cancer development. This is evident from every aspect of tumor biology including cell growth and differentiation, cell cycle control, DNA repair, angiogenesis, migration, and evasion of host immunosurveillance. In contrast to genetic cancer causes, the possibility of reversing epigenetic codes may provide new targets for therapeutic intervention.
Checked 2026-10-06 · 72 references not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
138 Not checked yet · 32 No basis given · 25 Own interpretation
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Epigenetic gene regulation collaborates with genetic alterations in cancer development.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is evident from every aspect of tumor biology including cell growth and differentiation, cell cycle control, DNA repair, angiogenesis, migration, and evasion of host immunosurveillance.”
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, other genes, such as cell cycle checkpoint genes and genes directly affected by exogenous stimuli such as growth factors or cell-cell contact, likely reside in a balanced state sensitive to dynamic adjustments in histone modifications, thereby allowing for rapid responses to specific stimuli.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Ser 10 phosphorylation also facilitates acetylation of Lys 9, thereby preventing the setting of repressive Lys 9 methylation marks (Rea et al. 2000).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rea et al. 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not surprisingly therefore, epigenetic gene regulation is characterized overall by a high degree of integrity and stability.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Trimethylation of Lys 4 on histone H3 correlates with transcriptional activity (Santos-Rosa et al. 2002),”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Santos-Rosa et al. 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“EZH2 is overexpressed in many cancers (Varambally et al. 2002;Bracken et al. 2003;Kleer et al. 2003;Raaphorst et al. 2003)”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Varambally et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Bracken et al. 2003
- Not checked yetcites Kleer et al. 2003
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the expression level of EZH2 correlates with a poorer prognosis in both prostate (Varambally et al. 2002) and breast cancer (Kleer et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Varambally et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Kleer et al. 2003
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and the other four human MLL homologs all reside in cancer-related loci.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second group of proteins, containing bromodomain and chromodomain modules, use the epigenetic marks on the histone tails as recognition landmarks to bind the chromatin and initiate downstream biological processes such as chromatin compaction, transcriptional regulation, or DNA repair (Fig. 2).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Together with the Trithorax group (TrxG) of proteins, which form positively acting transcriptional regulators (see following), the PcG complexes are thought to constitute a cellular memory system responsible for maintaining the epigenetic status of target genes throughout the lifetime of the organism (Jacobs and van Lohuizen 1999;Orlando 2003;Lund and van Lohuizen 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jacobs and van Lohuizen 1999
- Not checked yetcites Orlando 2003
- Not checked yetcites Lund and van Lohuizen 2004
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the exception of controlled genomic rearrangements, such as those of the immunoglobulin and T-cell receptor genes in B and T cells, all other differentiation processes are initiated or maintained through epigenetic processes.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“RNAi-mediated knockdown of EZH2 or EED in human primary or transformed cells results in a block of proliferation (Varambally et al. 2002;Bracken et al. 2003),”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Varambally et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Bracken et al. 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In somatic cells, the transcriptional status of most genes is epigenetically fixed.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and one study found MLL1 to reside in a large protein assembly containing subunits capable of regulating transcription preinitiation, nucleosome remodeling, histone acetylation, and histone methylation (Nakamura et al. 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nakamura et al. 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“MLL1 has been found to associate with other epigenetic regulators, such as the HAT CBP (Ernst et al. 2001) and INI1 (Rozenblatt-Rosen et al. 1998), a subunit of the SWI/SNF nucleosome remodeling complex,”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ernst et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Rozenblatt-Rosen et al. 1998
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Interestingly, emerging data suggest that the PRC2 complex composition may influence the type of methylation imprint imposed by EZH2, thereby adding yet another level of regulation (Kuzmichev et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kuzmichev et al. 2004
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The mixed lineage leukemia gene (MLL1, also known as HRX or ALL1) is involved in 11q23 translocations in acute leukemias (Djabali et al. 1992;Gu et al. 1992;Tkachuk et al. 1992),”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Djabali et al. 1992
- Not checked yetcites Gu et al. 1992
- Not checked yetcites Tkachuk et al. 1992
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several SET (SuVar39, Enhancer of Zeste, and Trithorax) domain proteins have been demonstrated to be methyltransferases capable of covalently altering the lysine residues of histone proteins.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone modification: setting the mark
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both PRC1 and PRC2 complex members have been linked to cell cycle control and cancer.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Hence, some histone modifications may act as molecular switches, enabling or blocking the setting of other covalent marks (Fischle et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fischle et al. 2003
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In combination with other covalent modifications such as acetylation, phosphorylation, and ubiquitination, methylations of histone proteins are thought to represent an epigenetic code by the creation of binding interfaces for proteins involved in chromatin regulation (Strahl and Allis 2000;Jenuwein and Allis 2001;Lachner et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone modification: setting the mark
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Strahl and Allis 2000
- Not checked yetcites Jenuwein and Allis 2001
- Not checked yetcites Lachner et al. 2003
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and MLL1 was recently shown to be a histone H3 Lys 4-specific methyltransferase (Milne et al. 2002;Nakamura et al. 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Milne et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Nakamura et al. 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Many SET domain proteins have been tightly linked to cancer development (Huang 2002;Schneider et al. 2002)”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone modification: setting the mark
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Huang 2002
- Not checked yetcites Schneider et al. 2002
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evidence is accumulating that suggests that the intrinsic stability is caused by multiple interlocking feedback mechanisms between functionally unrelated epigenetic layers, such as DNA methyltransferases (DNMTs) and histone modifying enzymes, resulting in the stable commitment of a locus to a particular activity state.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perturbation of epigenetic balances may lead to alterations in gene expression, ultimately resulting in cellular transformation and malignant outgrowth;”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and mice lacking Riz1 function only are prone to tumor formation (Steele-Perkins et al. 2001).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Steele-Perkins et al. 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The RIZ gene is situated on chromosome 1p36 in one of the most frequently deleted regions in human cancers (Buyse et al. 1996;Huang 2002),”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buyse et al. 1996
- Not checked yetcites Huang 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The RIZ gene produces two proteins, RIZ1 and RIZ2, because of the use of alternative promoters.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The RIZ1 SET domain was recently shown to be a histone H3 Lys 9specific methyltransferase (Kim et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kim et al. 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A similarly orchestrated epigenetic regulation was demonstrated for the Drosophila Trithorax-like protein Ash1, a histone methyltransferase (HMT) capable of methylating Lys 4 and Lys 9 of histone H3 and Lys 20 on histone H4 (Beisel et al. 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Beisel et al. 2002
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This ancient repressive system is self-sustaining in a cyclic manner, as HP1 associates directly with SUV39H1.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“EVI1 acts dominantly over its presumed antagonist MDS-EVI1 (Soderholm et al. 1997;Sitailo et al. 1999),”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soderholm et al. 1997
- Not checked yetcites Sitailo et al. 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“SUV39H1 is involved in stabilizing heterochromatic regions of the genome via trimethylation of histone H3 Lys 9 (Rea et al. 2000;Peters et al. 2001).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rea et al. 2000
- Not checked yetcites Peters et al. 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and high EVI1 expression correlates with poor prognosis in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (Barjesteh van Waalwijk van Doorn-Khosrovani et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Barjesteh van Waalwijk van Doorn-Khosrovani et al. 2003
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This methyl imprint creates an anchor point for chromodomain proteins of the HP1 family (Bannister et al. 2001;Lachner et al. 2001).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bannister et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Lachner et al. 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Interestingly, recent data from Drosophila studies indicate that TrxG proteins such as Trx and Ash1, rather than being general transcriptional coactivators, specifically function to prevent inappropriate silencing mediated by the PcG of transcriptional repressors (Klymenko and Muller 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Klymenko and Muller 2004
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The oncogenic capacity of several MLL fusion proteins has been verified in transgenic mice (Corral et al. 1996;Dobson et al. 1999).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Corral et al. 1996
- Not checked yetcites Dobson et al. 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In other MLL translocation products, the fusion partner moiety is likely capable of sequestering coactivators or nucleosome remodeling factors contributing to oncogenesis (discussed in So and Cleary 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites So and Cleary 2004
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recent data have demonstrated that dimerization of the MLL fusion partners may be an important virtue in some translocations (So et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites So et al. 2003
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Tumor-derived mutants of pRB have been identified that do not bind SUV39H proteins, signifying the importance of the association (Nielsen et al. 2001).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nielsen et al. 2001
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Conversely, siRNA-mediated knockdown of SMYD3 in cell lines derived from hepatomas and colorectal cancers was shown to have growth-inhibitory effects (Hamamoto et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hamamoto et al. 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Intriguingly, the known MLL target genes HoxA7 and HoxA9 are both required for leukemia induction by an MLL fusion oncogene (Ayton and Cleary 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ayton and Cleary 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recently, Suv39h1/2 was also shown to be important for regulating the length of mammalian telomeres (Garcia-Cao et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Garcia-Cao et al. 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Rather, the fusion proteins appear to exert dominant-negative functions over wild-type MLL (Arakawa et al. 1998;Ayton and Cleary 2001).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Arakawa et al. 1998
- Not checked yetcites Ayton and Cleary 2001
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and RIZ has been found to be inactivated by mutations or DNA methylation in a wide variety of human tumors including breast cancer, liver cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, lymphomas, and melanomas (Chadwick et al. 2000;Du et al. 2001;Poetsch et al. 2002;Sasaki et al. 2002;Oshimo et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chadwick et al. 2000
- Not checked yetcites Du et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Poetsch et al. 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“HDACs have, not unlike DNA methylation, dualistic and opposite functions in cancer development.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“PRMT4/ CARM1 positively regulates transcription of, among others, estrogen receptor-responsive genes via binding to the histone acetyl transferase CPB/p300 and methylation of Arg 17 of histone H3 (Xu et al. 2001;Daujat et al. 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Arginine methyltransferases
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Xu et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Daujat et al. 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, HDAC activity is often crucial to prepare the histone template for methyltransferases by removing acetyl groups obstructing methylation.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“To this end, methylation of Arg 3 of histone H4 by PRMT1 has been found to facilitate H4 acetylation and enhance transcriptional activity (Wang et al. 2001a).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Arginine methyltransferases
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang et al. 2001a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An emerging central theme is that several SET domain proteins can be found in a cancer-promoting and a cancer-preventing isoform.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“CBP and p300 are found disrupted by translocations in leukemia with translocation partners including MLL, MOZ, and MORF (Borrow et al. 1996;Sobulo et al. 1997;Panagopoulos et al. 2001).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Borrow et al. 1996
- Not checked yetcites Sobulo et al. 1997
- Not checked yetcites Panagopoulos et al. 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is true for the RIZ and MDS-EVI1 genes, both of which contain two promoters dictating separate protein isoforms, one form holding and one form lacking the SET domain.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CBP and p300 are functional tumor suppressors as demonstrated by several lines of evidence.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Finally, genetic ablation studies of Cbp and p300 in mouse models have confirmed that both proteins function as tumor suppressors (Yao et al. 1998;Kung et al. 2000;Kang-Decker et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yao et al. 1998
- Not checked yetcites Kung et al. 2000
- Not checked yetcites Kang-Decker et al. 2004
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Importantly, HDACs are associated with a number of other epigenetic repression mechanisms, including histone methylation (Ogawa et al. 2002;Vaute et al. 2002), PcG-mediated repression (van der Vlag and Otte 1999), and DNA methylation (Fuks et al. 2000;Rountree et al. 2000).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ogawa et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Vaute et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites van der Vlag and Otte 1999
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both HATs and HDACs have been found mutated or deregulated in various cancers.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“HDACs are, moreover, often found as”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“On the one hand, HDACs play prominent roles in the transcriptional inactivation of tumor-suppressor genes.This is evident from studies using pharmacological inhibitors of HDAC activity in cancer therapies (discussed following).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The two closely related HATs, p300 and CBP, act as transcriptional cofactors for a range of cellular oncoproteins, such as MYB, JUN, FOS, RUNX, BRCA1, p53, and pRB, as well as for the viral oncoproteins E1A, E6, and SV40 large T (for review, see Caron et al. 2003;Iyer et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Caron et al. 2003
- Not checked yetcites Iyer et al. 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Likewise, cell culture studies have demonstrated an important role for DNMT3A in cancer cell survival (Beaulieu et al. 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Beaulieu et al. 2002
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Together, these findings have led to the ying-yang theory (Huang 2002), proposing that the natural homeostasis existing between protein isoforms with and without SET domain is perturbated in cancers, resulting in selective expression of the oncogenic over the tumor-suppressive isoform.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Huang 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“and DNMT1 knockdown experiments in human cancer cell lines have demonstrated an essential role for DNMT1 in maintaining aberrant repression of tumor-suppressor loci (Robert et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Robert et al. 2003
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Interestingly, microarray analyses have re-vealed that the aberrant methylation patterns associated with cancer appears to be tumor-type specific”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eads et al. 2000
- Not checked yetcites Esteller et al. 2001
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“large-scale attempts to link epigenetic variation, such as methylation-variable positions, are currently being undertaken (Novik et al. 2002;Fazzari and Greally 2004”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Novik et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Fazzari and Greally 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In normal cells, insulator proteins such as the transcription factor CTCF establish chromatin boundaries”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fedoriw et al. 2004
- Not checked yetcites Lewis and Murrell 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Indeed, links between hypomethylation and genomic instability have been shown for many cancer types including breast cancer (Tsuda et al. 2002) and prostate cancer (Schulz et al. 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tsuda et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Schulz et al. 2002
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“mice carrying a hypomorph Dnmt1 allele develop aggressive lymphomas displaying a high frequency of genomic rearrangements (Gaudet et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Gaudet et al. 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“embryonic stem cells deficient for the Dnmt1 maintenance methyltransferase display an increased frequency of chromosomal rearrangements (Chen et al. 1998)”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Chen et al. 1998
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A decrease in global methylation can be detected prior to tumor formation in rats maintained on a methyldeficient diet (Christman et al. 1993;Pogribny et al. 1997),”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Christman et al. 1993
- Not checked yetcites Pogribny et al. 1997
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Loss of DNA methylation has also been linked to nutrition, as lack of S-adenosylmethione, the primary methyl donor in the cell, has been shown to predispose to cancer (Huang 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Huang 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ectopic cytosine hypermethylation is generally associated with transcriptional repression and, ultimately, tumor formation.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“methylation of the CTCF recognition sequence abolishes CTCF binding (Nakagawa et al. 2001)”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nakagawa et al. 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spreading of heterochromatin-associated repression may be concurrent with the breakdown of higherorder chromatin structures such as boundary elements.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indicating that specific DNA methylations may have long-range consequences.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“evidence from several model systems has demonstrated that histone methylation imprint may direct DNA methylation (Tamaru and Selker 2001;Bachman et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tamaru and Selker 2001
- Not checked yetcites Bachman et al. 2003
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Transcriptional silencing of genes with tumor-suppressive function may also occur via spreading of heterochromatin out from nearby silenced loci of repetitive DNA (Jones and Baylin 2002)”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jones and Baylin 2002
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“that the aberrant methylation patterns associated with cancer appears to be tumor-type specific (Eads et al. 2000;Esteller et al. 2001;Adorjan et al. 2002;Paz et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eads et al. 2000
- Not checked yetcites Esteller et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Adorjan et al. 2002
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and hypomethylation has been found to increase the expression of several known oncogenes including CYCLIN D2 (Oshimo et al. 2003), BCL2 (Hanada et al. 1993), and HRAS (Feinberg and Vogelstein 1983b).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Oshimo et al. 2003
- Not checked yetcites Hanada et al. 1993
- Not checked yetcites Feinberg and Vogelstein 1983b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“acetylated lysines serve as binding sites for bromodomain-containing proteins, such as HATs and chromatin remodeling factors, some of which take part in the transcription initiation complex (Dhalluin et al. 1999;Zeng and Zhou 2002;Kanno et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Reading epigenetic codes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dhalluin et al. 1999
- Not checked yetcites Zeng and Zhou 2002
- Not checked yetcites Kanno et al. 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Studies of remethylation of the p16 INK4A tumor-suppressor gene following genome-wide demethylation indicates a requirement for DNA replication prior to remethylation (Velicescu et al. 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Velicescu et al. 2002
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“On a more positive note, global demethylation results in the expression of”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De Smet et al. 1996
- Not checked yetcites Banchereau et al. 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By extension, epigenetic silencing may underlie genetic cancer causes.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Collaboration between genetic and epigenetic cancer causes has been directly demonstrated by examples in which one tumor-suppressor allele is inactivated by mutations and the other allele is transcriptionally silenced because of hypermethylation (Myohanen et al. 1998;Grady et al. 2000).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Myohanen et al. 1998
- Not checked yetcites Grady et al. 2000
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and silencing of the DNA repair gene coding for O6methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase has been associated with specific mutations in K-RAS (Esteller et al. 2000) and p53 (Nakamura et al. 2001).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Esteller et al. 2000
- Not checked yetcites Nakamura et al. 2001
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The methylation imprint set by EZH2 at Lys 27 on histone H3 mechanistically links the PRC2 and PRC1 PcG complexes, as methylated Lys 27 of histone H3 serves as a binding site for the PRC1 member Pc (Cao et al. 2002;Czermin et al. 2002;Kuzmichev et al. 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Polycomb proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cao et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Czermin et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Kuzmichev et al. 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“analyses of the SWI/SNF core subunit SNF5 (INI1) have revealed the presence of inactivating mutations in highly aggressive human malignant rhabdoid tumors (Versteege et al. 1998;Biegel et al. 1999).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Messing around with nucleosomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Versteege et al. 1998
- Not checked yetcites Biegel et al. 1999
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“H2AX therefore appears to constitute a bona fide epigenetic tumor suppressor mechanism.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Variant histones
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the three mammalian HP1 members all hold chromodomains capable of recognizing the methylated Lys 9 on histone H3 (Bannister et al. 2001;Lachner et al. 2001)”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > HP1 proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bannister et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Lachner et al. 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Such compensatory mecha-nisms were demonstrated recently in mouse ES cells deficient for both Suv39 homologs (Peters et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > HP1 proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Peters et al. 2003
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Bmi1 proved indispensable for the maintenance of hematopoietic and leukemic stem cells (Lessard and Sauvageau 2003;Park et al. 2003)”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Polycomb proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lessard and Sauvageau 2003
- Not checked yetcites Park et al. 2003
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, ample evidence exists connecting PcG-mediated epigenetic repression to cancer development.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Polycomb proteins
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“perhaps surprisingly, no firm cancer connections have been established for any of the methylbinding proteins.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Methyl-DNA-binding proteins
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“mouse models demonstrating Snf5 as a haploinsufficient tumor-suppressor gene (Klochendler-Yeivin et al. 2000;Roberts et al. 2000)”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Messing around with nucleosomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Klochendler-Yeivin et al. 2000
- Not checked yetcites Roberts et al. 2000
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Nucleosome remodeling complexes modify chromatin topology in an ATP-dependent manner by disrupting DNA:histone interactions, thereby facilitating sliding of the nucleosome, and hence the accessibility of the DNA to transcription factors (Becker and Horz 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Messing around with nucleosomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Becker and Horz 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“methyl-DNA-binding proteins have been found associated with aberrantly methylated promoter regions of cancer-relevant genes such as p16CDKN2A (Nguyen et al. 2001) and MGMT (Nakagawachi et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Methyl-DNA-binding proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nguyen et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Nakagawachi et al. 2003
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“mutation analysis from human lung and colon cancers revealed few changes in MBD1 or MBD2, indicating a limited role for these proteins in cancer (Bader et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Methyl-DNA-binding proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bader et al. 2003
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“when bred onto a bona fide model for intestinal cancer, the Apc min mouse, loss of Mbd2 significantly delays tumorigenesis (Sansom et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Methyl-DNA-binding proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sansom et al. 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“hence, functional inactivation of SWI/SNF impinges on a multitude of cellular growth control pathways (for a recent review, see Roberts and Orkin 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Messing around with nucleosomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Roberts and Orkin 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the differences in subnuclear localizations point to the presence of additional mechanisms for localizing and tethering HP1 proteins.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > HP1 proteins
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Bmi1 is the most extensively studied PRC1 member, which has been found to be overexpressed in human tumors (Bea et al. 2001;Vonlanthen et al. 2001;Leung et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Polycomb proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bea et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Vonlanthen et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Leung et al. 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Bmi1 was subsequently demonstrated to exert oncogenic effects through down-regulation of the CDK inhibitors p16 ink4a and p19 Arf , thereby impinging on both the pRB and the p53 pathways (Jacobs et al. 1999a,b).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Polycomb proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jacobs et al. 1999a,b
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In cell culture models, BMI1 regulates replicative senescence in human fibroblasts and mammary epithelial cells via repression of p16 and indirectly via induction of hTert (Dimri et al. 2002;Itahana et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Polycomb proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dimri et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Itahana et al. 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The significance of epigenetic mechanisms for gene regulation in cancer is now evident”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Conclusions
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“SWI/SNF interacts with many protein complexes central to cancer development, such as RB, p53, MYC, MLL, BRCA1, and -catenin”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Messing around with nucleosomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Roberts and Orkin 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Although MeCP2, MBD2, and MBD4 have been found down-regulated in human cancers (Zhu et al. 2004b)”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Methyl-DNA-binding proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhu et al. 2004b
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“many”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Conclusions
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“MBD2 knockdown in human cancer cell lines was found to suppress tumorigenesis in a mouse xenograft model (Ivanov et al. 2003;Campbell et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Methyl-DNA-binding proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ivanov et al. 2003
- Not checked yetcites Campbell et al. 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“and neuronal stem cell populations (Molofsky et al. 2003;Leung et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Polycomb proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Molofsky et al. 2003
- Not checked yetcites Leung et al. 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study of epigenetic imprints is still in its infancy”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Not all epigenetic marks are known.
- Rests on an assumption: Only few of the known epigenetic marks are understood in any detail.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“cancer-related mechanisms acting at all epilayers”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
In the paper
“analyses of yeast SWI/SNF mutants revealed that transcription of ∼5% of all yeast genes is influenced by SWI/ SNF mutations (Sudarsanam et al. 2000).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Messing around with nucleosomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sudarsanam et al. 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 70
- Probably not a substantial claim. 19
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast to genetic cancer causes, the possibility of reversing epigenetic codes may provide new targets for therapeutic intervention.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Epigenetic changes that contribute to cancer can be reversed pharmacologically to produce therapeutic benefit.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Aside from the core histones, a variety of variant histone proteins exist and can be inserted into the nucleosome, possibly serving as landmarks for specific cellular functions (discussed following).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Surprisingly, although PRC2 complex members are directly controlled by the RB tumor-suppressor pathway, their expression levels do not appear to fluctuate in a cell cycle-dependent manner (Weinmann et al. 2001;Bracken et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Weinmann et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Bracken et al. 2003
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This is exemplified in gene activation where phosphorylation of histone H3 Ser 10 facilitates acetylation of Lys 14 and methylation of Lys 4, resulting in an open chromatin conformation (Cheung et al. 2000;Lo et al. 2000).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cheung et al. 2000
- Not checked yetcites Lo et al. 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The pattern of histone modifications signifies the status of the chromatin locally and has been coined the histone code (Strahl and Allis 2000).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Strahl and Allis 2000
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Epigenetic programming is crucial in mammalian development, and stable inheritance of epigenetic settings is essential for the maintenance of tissue-and cell-typespecific functions (Li 2002).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Li 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These functions point to long-range mechanisms of transcriptional repression and suggest that PRC2 activity may have global consequences to the cell, perhaps via more generally skewing the balance between specific histone methylation imprints.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“histone methylations can serve as anchorage points for both activator and repressor complexes and are thereby involved in conferring an epigenetic inheritance to the cell, carrying information related to differentiation commitment and function.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The nucleosome is made up of approximately two turns of DNA wrapped around a histone octamer built from two subunits of each histone, H2A, H2B, H3, and H4, respectively, In between core nucleosomes, the linker histone H1 attaches and facilitates further compaction (for a recent review, see Khorasanizadeh 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Khorasanizadeh 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Polycomb-group (PcG) proteins form transcriptional repressor modules that functionally can be divided into at least two distinct complexes: the initiation complex, Polycomb repression complex 2 (PRC2), the core of which in humans consists of EZH2, EED, and SUZ12; and the maintenance complex, PRC1, with the core proteins RNF2, HPC, EDR, and BMI1.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Al-though histone acetylation in general correlates with transcriptional activity,”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“however, experimental overexpression of EZH2 results in target gene suppression only (Varambally et al. 2002), and hence does not sustain a notion of dominant negative effects.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Varambally et al. 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“and the observed overexpression of EZH2 in cancers is likely causally related to tumorigenesis and not a mere consequence of deregulated RB-E2F functioning, as the EZH2 locus is amplified in several cancers (Bracken et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bracken et al. 2003
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although most histone modifications are reversible, no histone demethylase has been identified as yet, suggesting histone methylation to be involved in processes of long-term regulation.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The N-terminal tails of the histone proteins are protruding out from the nucleosomal core particles, and these tails serve as regulatory registers onto which epigenetic signals can be written.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Recent data have demonstrated that the SET domain present in EZH2 is responsible for methylation of Lys 9 and, more prominently, Lys 27 of histone H3 (Cao et al. 2002;Czermin et al. 2002;Kuzmichev et al. 2002;Muller et al. 2002) and Lys 26 on histone H1 (Kuzmichev et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cao et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Czermin et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Kuzmichev et al. 2004
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also DNA methylation affects histone modifications and vice versa, to make up a highly intricate epigenetic control mechanism, the impact of which we have only just begun to comprehend.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Members of both PcG and TrxG protein complexes harbor SET domains.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The PRC2 complex is also required for X-chromosome inactivation (Plath et al. 2003;Silva et al. 2003) and for correct imprinting of autosomal loci (Wang et al. 2001b).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Plath et al. 2003
- Not checked yetcites Silva et al. 2003
- Not checked yetcites Wang et al. 2001b
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Covalent modification of histones includes acetylation of lysines, methylation of lysines and arginines, phosphorylations of serines and threonines, ADP-ribosylation of glutamic acids, and ubiquitination and sumolyation of lysine residues (Fig. 1).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Epigenetic gene regulation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Histone proteins can be mono-, di-, or trimethylated at the amino group of lysine residues and either mono-or dimethylated at arginine residues.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone modification: setting the mark
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This, however, remains to be confirmed in mouse models.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Polycomb imprints
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“SMYD3 was found to interact with the RNA polymerase II complex and activate target genes via methylation of histone H3 Lys 4.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Evi1 was characterized in the mouse as a cancer-related retroviral integration site in myeloid leukemia (Morishita et al. 1988), and EVI1 was subsequently identified as a translocation breakpoint in hu-mans (Morishita et al. 1992).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Morishita et al. 1988
- Not checked yetcites Morishita et al. 1992
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Mll heterozygous mice do not appear tumor prone, making haploinsufficiency a less likely cause of leukemogenesis (Corral et al. 1996).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Corral et al. 1996
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Whereas Suv39h deficiency in the mouse predominantly was found to affect heterochromatin stability, the Suv39h methyltransferases associate with numerous proteins involved in cell cycle regulation including pRB (Nielsen et al. 2001;Vandel et al. 2001), PcG-proteins (Sewalt et al. 2002), and SMADs (Frontelo et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Nielsen et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Vandel et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Sewalt et al. 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“SUV39H1 is the mammalian homolog of the Drosophila position effect variegation modifier Su(var)3-9 and was the first SET domain protein to be recognized as a histone methyl transferase (Rea et al. 2000).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rea et al. 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Ash1-specific methylation imprint was found to displace HP1 and PcG proteins, which are normally bound to repressed genes, and instead facilitates the binding of the Brahma chromatin remodeling complex (Beisel et al. 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Beisel et al. 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests a functional redundancy between different epigenetic gene repression mechanisms, which may serve to explain why loss of Suv39h-mediated repression does not have an even stronger phenotype.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intriguingly, all fusion proteins retain the N-terminal part of MLL1, whereas the C-terminal part encoding the SET domain is lost.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In accordance with a tumor-suppressive function of RIZ1, ectopic expression in cancer cell lines results in cell cycle arrest and/or apoptosis (He et al. 1998;Jiang et al. 1999).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites He et al. 1998
- Not checked yetcites Jiang et al. 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“RIZ1, originally isolated from its interaction with the RB tumor suppressor protein (Buyse et al. 1995), was the first SET domain protein demonstrated to be a tumor suppressor (Steele-Perkins et al. 2001).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Buyse et al. 1995
- Not checked yetcites Steele-Perkins et al. 2001
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Mice deficient for the two Suv39 homologs display chromosomal instability and are prone to develop B-cell lymphomas resembling human non-Hodgkin lymphomas, albeit with long latency (Peters et al. 2001).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Peters et al. 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In embryonic stem (ES) cells lacking both Suv39 homologs the pericentromeric heterochromatin is devoid of the characteristic trimethylation of histone H3, Lys 9. Instead, an alternative methylation imprint consisting of monomethylated Lys 9 and trimethylated Lys 27 has accumulated (Peters et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Peters et al. 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 5Ј MDS part of MDS-EVI1 contains a SET domain, and both retroviral integrations in the mouse and translocations in humans result in the selective overexpression of the EVI1 variant lacking a SET domain.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“SMYD3 was recently identified as a SET and MYND domain-containing protein overexpressed in colorectal carcinomas and hepatocellular carcinomas (Hamamoto et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hamamoto et al. 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interestingly, only RIZ1 harbors a SET domain and appears to be the main target of inactivation in tumors (Huang 2002),”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Huang 2002
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Whereas the oncogenic capacity of SMYD3 is yet to be confirmed in an in vivo model, overexpression of SMYD3 results in colony formation of NIH 3T3 cells.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The reduced histone H3 methylation resulting from loss of Suv39h caused a decrease in HP1 association to the telomeres and abnormal telomere elongation (Garcia- Cao et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Garcia-Cao et al. 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“More than 40 specific translocations involving MLL1 have been described in human cancers to date (Ayton and Cleary 2001).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ayton and Cleary 2001
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interestingly, the MYND domain appears to confer sequence-specific binding to target genes.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Setting Trithorax imprints
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Likewise, RNAi-mediated knockdown of HDAC2 in colonic cancer cells resulted in cell death, indicating a role for HDAC2 in protecting cancer cells against apoptosis (Zhu et al. 2004a).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhu et al. 2004a
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Aside from histones, many transcriptional regulators, chromatin modifiers, and intracellular signal transducers are posttranslationally modified by acetylation.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Dnmt1 was shown to be necessary and sufficient for Fos-induced transformation of mouse fibroblast cells (Bakin and Curran 1999),”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bakin and Curran 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“On the other hand is the reliance of important tumorsuppressor mechanisms on HDAC function, as exemplified by the dependency of RB on HDAC1 for transcriptional repression of E2F target genes (Luo et al. 1998;Magnaghi-Jaulin et al. 1998;Robertson et al. 2000).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Luo et al. 1998
- Not checked yetcites Magnaghi-Jaulin et al. 1998
- Not checked yetcites Robertson et al. 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DNA methylation is tightly connected to cancer development and can act as a double-edged sword.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DNMT1 associates with the DNA replication fork and functions as a hemi-methylase responsible for maintaining correct methylation patterns on DNA replication.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“All three methyltransferase enzymes have been found to be overexpressed in human tumors, although to moderate levels only (De Marzo et al. 1999;Robertson et al. 1999;Girault et al. 2003;Nagai et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites De Marzo et al. 1999
- Not checked yetcites Robertson et al. 1999
- Not checked yetcites Girault et al. 2003
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CpG islands are most often associated with promoter regions and an estimated 60% of human genes contain a CpG island (Antequera and Bird 1993).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Antequera and Bird 1993
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Germ-line mutations in DNMT3B underlies ICF syndrome, a rare disorder characterized by immunodeficiency, centromeric instability, and facial abnormalities (Hansen et al. 1999;Xu et al. 1999).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hansen et al. 1999
- Not checked yetcites Xu et al. 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Hdac1-deficient mice are not viable and ES cells with homozygous Hdac1 deletion display proliferation defects correlating with increased levels of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors p21 and p27 (Lagger et al. 2002), demonstrating the involvement of HDAC1 in cell cycle regulation.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lagger et al. 2002
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Germ-line mutations in CBP causes the developmental disorder Rubenstein-Taybi syndrome, and these patients suffer an increased cancer risk (Petrij et al. 1995;Murata et al. 2001).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Petrij et al. 1995
- Not checked yetcites Murata et al. 2001
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although no arginine-specific methyltransferases have been implicated in cancer development yet, several of these enzymes are involved in gene regulatory complexes important for cell cycle regulation.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Arginine methyltransferases
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“PRMT5 was furthermore found to associate with and negatively regulate the cyclin E promoter (Fabbrizio et al. 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Arginine methyltransferases
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fabbrizio et al. 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Patterns of DNA methylation are laid out during early embryogenesis via the interplay of at least three active DNA methyltransferases, DNMT1, DNMT3A, and DNMT3B, and targeted deletions of these genes in the mouse have demonstrated that the enzymes are essential for normal development (Li et al. 1992;Okano et al. 1999).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Li et al. 1992
- Not checked yetcites Okano et al. 1999
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Methylation at the C-5 position of cytosine residues present in CpG dinucleotides by DNMTs has evolved relatively late in evolution and is generally considered to facilitate static long-term gene silencing and to confer genome stability through repression of transposons and repetitive DNA elements (Yoder et al. 1997).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Yoder et al. 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Recently, Hdac2 was genetically linked to the Wnt pathway, as Hdac2 is overexpressed in tumors and tissues from mice lacking the adenomatosis polyposis coli (APC) tumor suppressor (Zhu et al. 2004a).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhu et al. 2004a
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The PRMT5 arginine methyltransferase can methylate both histone H3 and H4 in vitro and interacts directly with components of the SWI/SNF complex (Pal et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Arginine methyltransferases
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pal et al. 2003
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Interestingly, mouse embryo fibroblasts deficient for Dnmt3b are resistant to transformation by SV40 largeT and activated Ras oncogenes (Soejima et al. 2003), demonstrating that epigenetic and genetic mechanisms likely act in concert during cellular transformation.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soejima et al. 2003
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“On the one hand, oncogenesis is promoted by local hypermethylation of tumor-suppressor genes, whereas global genomic hypomethylation, on the other hand, affects oncogene expression and genomic stability (Jones and Baylin 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jones and Baylin 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Acetylation of histone proteins correlates with transcriptional activation and a dynamic equilibrium of histone acetylation is governed by the opposing actions of HATs and histone deacetylases (HDACs) (for recent reviews, see Marks et al. 2001;Yang 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Marks et al. 2001
- Not checked yetcites Yang 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CpG dinucleotides are statistically underrepresented in the genome, likely because methylation of cytosine makes them more susceptible to deamination, but are locally enriched in shorter stretches of DNA (0.5 to several kilobases) known as CpG islands (Bird 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bird 2002
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Both genes reside in regions frequently lost in tumors, and cancerspecific mutations abolishing the enzymatic activity of p300 have been identified (Muraoka et al. 1996;Gayther et al. 2000;Ozdag et al. 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Histone acetylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Muraoka et al. 1996
- Not checked yetcites Gayther et al. 2000
- Not checked yetcites Ozdag et al. 2002
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the regulatory regions of many genes (including known tumor suppressors) contain islands of repetitive sequences, some of which have been shown to influence transcriptional regulation (Jordan et al. 2003;Kelly 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jordan et al. 2003
- Not checked yetcites Kelly 2003
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Loss of imprinting of the IGF2 gene was recently suggested as a predictive marker for colorectal cancer (Cui et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cui et al. 2003
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“CTCF is involved in the regulation of imprinting, where it is required to protect against de novo methylation (Fedoriw et al. 2004;Lewis and Murrell 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fedoriw et al. 2004
- Not checked yetcites Lewis and Murrell 2004
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Also, hypermethylation of tumor-suppressor genes may be an early event in cancer development (Waki et al. 2003;Lee et al. 2004;Suter et al. 2004), suggesting that epigenetic and mutational cancer causes may collaborate from an early time point in disease progression.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Waki et al. 2003
- Not checked yetcites Lee et al. 2004
- Not checked yetcites Suter et al. 2004
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“it has been suggested that DNMTs may preferentially bind to damaged or mismatched DNA (James et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites James et al. 2003
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Epigenetic induction of a classical mutator phenotype via transcriptional inactivation of the DNA mismatch repair gene MLH1 has been proposed to account for microsatellite instability in colorectal cancers (Kane et al. 1997;Herman et al. 1998;Toyota et al. 1999a,b),”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kane et al. 1997
- Not checked yetcites Herman et al. 1998
- Not checked yetcites Toyota et al. 1999a,b
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In contrast to hypermethylation of tumor-suppressor genes, tumor cells globally display an overall hypomethylation of DNA (Feinberg and Vogelstein 1983a;Goelz et al. 1985) and hypomethylation was the first epigenetic mechanism to be linked to cancer development (Feinberg and Tycko 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Feinberg and Vogelstein 1983a
- Not checked yetcites Goelz et al. 1985
- Not checked yetcites Feinberg and Tycko 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Global genomic demethylation appears to progress with age in a tissue-dependent manner (Richardson 2003) and may in part explain the higher incidence of cancer among the elderly.”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Richardson 2003
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Genomic hypomethylation may furthermore cause genomic instability, presumably because demethylation predisposes to DNA strand breakage and recombination within derepressed repetitive sequences (for review, see Ehrlich 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > DNA methylation
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ehrlich 2002
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“BRG1/BRM expression was found lost in 10% of primary lung tumors correlating with a poor prognostic outcome (Reisman et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Messing around with nucleosomes
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Reisman et al. 2003
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Noncoding antisense RNA driving DNA methylation”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The H2A variant H2AX marks DNA double-strand breaks, and H2AX-deficient cells have increased genomic instability and impaired forma-tion of radiation-induced foci of DNA repair proteins such as BRCA1 (Bassing et al. 2002;Celeste et al. 2002).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Variant histones
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bassing et al. 2002
- Not checked yetcites Celeste et al. 2002
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“DNA methylation driving histone modification”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In both mammals and flies, HP1 acts in a dosage-dependent manner with heterozygotes displaying a partial loss of gene silencing and HP1 overexpression resulting in an increase in silencing (Eissenberg et al. 1992;Festenstein et al. 1999).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > HP1 proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eissenberg et al. 1992
- Not checked yetcites Festenstein et al. 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Histone modification directing DNA methylation”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“HP1␣ and HP1 localize to pericentric heterochromatin and minor sites within euchromatin, whereas HP1␥ localizes predominantly to euchromatic regions (Eissenberg and Elgin 2000).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > HP1 proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Eissenberg and Elgin 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These studies place Bmi1, and thereby epigenetic gene regulation, central to the emerging concept of tumor stem cells, which aside from having escaped cellular growth control mechanisms such as the p53 and the pRB pathways, also have (re)instigated a stem cell-like transcription program that allows for continuous self-renewal (Pardal et al. 2003;Valk-Lingbeek et al. 2004).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Polycomb proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pardal et al. 2003
- Not checked yetcites Valk-Lingbeek et al. 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“CENP-A was recently found to be overexpressed and mislocalized in primary human colorectal tumors, suggesting a link between CENP-A deregulation and aneuploidy (Tomonaga et al. 2003).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > Variant histones
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tomonaga et al. 2003
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the expression of HP1␣ is reportedly down-regulated in invasive human breast cancer cells, and overexpression of HP1␣ results in diminished invasive potential (Kirschmann et al. 2000).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > HP1 proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kirschmann et al. 2000
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Loss of Suv39h in mice results in the displacement of HP1 proteins from pericentromeric heterochromatin, resulting in anaploidy and cancer (Peters et al. 2001).”
§ REVIEW Epigenetics and cancer > HP1 proteins
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Peters et al. 2001
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Epigenetic changes that contribute to cancer can be reversed pharmacologically to produce therapeutic benefit.
“In contrast to genetic cancer causes, the possibility of reversing epigenetic codes may provide new targets for therapeutic intervention.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Understanding the molecular details of epigenetic cancer mechanisms will translate into new drug development strategies.
“Understanding the molecular details behind”
The paper relies on this without support.
Findings from model organisms and cell lines are informative about human cancer epigenetics.
“Mouse models have further validated a role for genomic hypomethylation in tumor formation”
The paper relies on this without support.
Epigenetic alterations observed in cancer cell lines and xenografts reflect primary human tumor biology.
“MBD2 knockdown in human cancer cell lines was found to suppress tumorigenesis in a mouse xenograft model”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Reversal of epigenetic silencing will reinstate cellular cancer defense mechanisms.
“The fundamental principle behind this type of epigenetic therapy is that reversal of epigenetic silencing will reinstate cellular cancer defense mechanisms”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is limited knowledge about possible adverse effects in patients.
“relatively little is known about potential side effects in patients”
The paper relies on this without support.
Not all epigenetic marks are known.
“not all epigenetic marks are known”
The paper relies on this without support.
Only few of the known epigenetic marks are understood in any detail.
“only few of the known ones are understood in any detail”
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?
In the citing paper
“Both chromatin remodelling and DNA methylation have been linked to tumorigenesis119,120.”
From Cellular mechanisms of tumour suppression by the retinoblastoma gene (2008) · cites this paper as [119]
Citations
Cites
2 retracted
Histone methylation by the Drosophila epigenetic transcriptional regulator Ash1
Beisel, C., Imhof, A., Greene, J., Kremmer, E., & Sauer, F. (2002) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature01126 · Cited by 310
RetractedHairpin RNAs and Retrotransposon LTRs Effect RNAi and Chromatin-Based Gene Silencing
Schramke, V., & Allshire, R. C. (2003) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1086870 · Cited by 307
RetractedBartel (2004) · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(04)00045-5 · Cited by 34,714
Hanahan, D., & Weinberg, R. A. (2000) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81683-9 · Cited by 29,219
Jenuwein, T., & Allis, C. D. (2001) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1063127 · Cited by 9,756
The language of covalent histone modifications
Strahl, B. D., & Allis, C. D. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/47412 · Cited by 8,679
DNA methylation patterns and epigenetic memory
Bird, A. (2002) · Genes & Development · doi:10.1101/gad.947102 · Cited by 7,124
Jaenisch, R., & Bird, A. (2003) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1089 · Cited by 6,325
Okano, M., Bell, D. W., Haber, D. A., & Li, E. (1999) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81656-6 · Cited by 6,143
The fundamental role of epigenetic events in cancer
Jones, P. A., & Baylin, S. B. (2002) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg816 · Cited by 5,648
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- 2001, Cancer Res., 61, 2409
- 1999, Cancer Res., 59, 74
- 1999, Cancer Res., 59, 3855
- 2002, Cancer Res., 62, 4736
- 2001, Cancer Res., 61, 8094
- 2000, Cancer Res., 60, 2368
- 2001, Cancer Res., 61, 3225
- 2003, Clin. Cancer Res., 9, 4415
- 1995, Cancer Res., 55, 5195
- 1998, Cancer Res., 58, 4238
- 1995, Cancer Res., 55, 4525
- 1997, Cancer Res., 57, 808
- 2003, Cancer Res., 63, 7619
- 2000, Cancer Res., 60, 3359
- 1996, Oncogene, 12, 1565
- 1998, Cancer Res., 58, 591
- 2002, Curr. Issues Mol. Biol., 4, 111
- 1993, Oncogene, 8, 1063
- 2003, Int. J. Oncol., 23, 1663
- 2003, Cancer Res., 63, 1114
- 2003, Cancer Res., 63, 560
- 2003, Cancer Res., 63, 3511
- 1999, Cancer Res., 59, 5438
- 2002, Cancer Res., 62, 2378
- 1999, Nat. Genet., 23, 62
- 2000, Cancer Res., 60, 6171
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Anticancer activities of histone deacetylase inhibitors
Bolden, J. E., Peart, M. J., & Johnstone, R. W. (2006) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd2133 · Cited by 2,919
Histone deacetylase inhibitors and the promise of epigenetic (and more) treatments for cancer
Minucci, S., & Pelicci, P. G. (2006) · Nature reviews. Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc1779 · Cited by 2,234
Epigenetic gene silencing in cancer – a mechanism for early oncogenic pathway addiction?
Baylin, S. B., & Ohm, J. E. (2006) · Nature reviews. Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc1799 · Cited by 1,657
Cellular mechanisms of tumour suppression by the retinoblastoma gene
Burkhart, D. L., & Sage, J. (2008) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc2399 · Cited by 974
RNAi-mediated pathways in the nucleus
Matzke, M. A., & Birchler, J. A. (2005) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1500 · Cited by 858
Metadata
- Authors
- Lund, A. H., & van Lohuizen, M.
- Affiliations
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
- ORCID
- Lund, Anders H.
- Venue
- Genes & Development
- Publisher
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
- Published
- 2004-10-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 19
- Pages
- 2315-2335
- ISSN
- 0890-9369 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-5477
- OpenAlex
- W2136492640
- Semantic Scholar
- a8eac694f349babbcdf21346ba0dfed461fa4e4f
- Cited by
- 489
- References
- 290
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 23
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Genes & Development (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
- Keywords
- epigenetics, cancer, chromatin accessibility, DNA methylation, histone modifications, transcriptional regulation, tumor biology, cell cycle regulation, DNA repair, angiogenesis, cell migration, immune evasion, epigenetic therapy
- MeSH terms
- Cell Cycle, Cell Differentiation, Cell Division, DNA Repair, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Neoplasms, Neovascularization, Pathologic
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 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (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