Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 3,169

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Consensus Coding Sequences of Human Breast and Colorectal Cancers

Sjöblom, Tobias, Jones, Siân, Wood, Laura D., Parsons, D. Williams, Lin, Jimmy, Barber, Thomas D., Mandelker, Diana, Leary, Rebecca J., Ptak, Janine, Silliman, Natalie, Szabo, Steve, Buckhaults, Phillip, Farrell, Christopher, Meeh, Paul, Markowitz, Sanford D., Willis, Joseph, Dawson, Dawn, Willson, James K. V., Gazdar, Adi F., Hartigan, James, Wu, Leo, Liu, Changsheng, Parmigiani, Giovanni, Park, Ben Ho, Bachman, Kurtis E., Papadopoulos, Nickolas, Vogelstein, Bert, Kinzler, Kenneth W., Velculescu, Victor E.·2006·Science

Abstract

The elucidation of the human genome sequence has made it possible to identify genetic alterations in cancers in unprecedented detail. To begin a systematic analysis of such alterations, we determined the sequence of well-annotated human protein-coding genes in two common tumor types. Analysis of 13,023 genes in 11 breast and 11 colorectal cancers revealed that individual tumors accumulate an average of ∼90 mutant genes but that only a subset of these contribute to the neoplastic process. Using stringent criteria to delineate this subset, we identified 189 genes (average of 11 per tumor) that were mutated at significant frequency. The vast majority of these genes were not known to be genetically altered in tumors and are predicted to affect a wide range of cellular functions, including transcription, adhesion, and invasion. These data define the genetic landscape of two human cancer types, provide new targets for diagnostic and therapeutic intervention, and open fertile avenues for basic research in tumor biology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.1133427

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 3,169

Metadata

Authors
Sjöblom, T., Jones, S., Wood, L. D., Parsons, D. W., Lin, J., Barber, T. D., Mandelker, D., Leary, R. J., Ptak, J., Silliman, N., Szabo, S., Buckhaults, P., Farrell, C., Meeh, P., Markowitz, S. D., Willis, J., Dawson, D., Willson, J. K. V., Gazdar, A. F., Hartigan, J., Wu, L., Liu, C., Parmigiani, G., Park, B. H., Bachman, K. E., Papadopoulos, N., Vogelstein, B., Kinzler, K. W., & Velculescu, V. E.
Venue
Science
Published
2006-10-13
Volume
314
Issue
5797
Pages
268-274
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W4240237951
Cited by
3,169
References
5
FWCI
88.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Consensus Coding Sequences of Human Breast and Colorectal Cancers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1126/science.1133427
The paper
Sjöblom, T., Jones, S., Wood, L. D., Parsons, D. W., Lin, J., Barber, T. D., Mandelker, D., Leary, R. J., Ptak, J., Silliman, N., Szabo, S., Buckhaults, P., Farrell, C., Meeh, P., Markowitz, S. D., Willis, J., Dawson, D., Willson, J. K. V., Gazdar, A. F., . . . Velculescu, V. E. (2006). The Consensus Coding Sequences of Human Breast and Colorectal Cancers. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133427

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.