Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 464

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

Anticancer drug targets: cell cycle and checkpoint control

Open access
Shapiro, Geoffrey I., Harper, J. Wade·1999·Journal of Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Components of the cell cycle machinery are frequently altered in human cancer. Central players are the cyclin-dependent kinases (cdks), which govern the initiation, progression, and completion of cell cycle events. The scheduled activity of the cdks, which allows orderly transition between cell cycle phases, is controlled by their association with cyclins and cdk inhibitors, by their state of phosphorylation, and by ubiquitin-mediated proteolysis. As malignant cells evolve, both genetic and epigenetic mechanisms commonly affect the expression of cell cycle regulatory proteins, causing overexpression of cyclins and loss of expression of cdk inhibitors. A major consequence is deregulated cdk activity, providing cells with a selective growth advantage. The crucial role of the cdks has prompted great interest in the development of specific kinase inhibitors that would be expected to block cell cycle progression and induce growth arrest. Another hallmark of the transformed state is incompetent checkpoint control, resulting in aberrant responses to cellular damage. For example, damage to DNA or the spindle apparatus normally triggers cell cycle arrest or apoptosis, depending on the degree of damage and the cellular context. Cell cycle arrest most frequently occurs at the G1/S or G2/M boundaries. When checkpoint arrest control is compromised, initiation of S phase or mitosis occurs despite cellular damage, and the ensuing genetic instability may lead to the eventual emergence of a malignant clone. However, this failure of cell cycle arrest responses in malignant cells can also be exploited therapeutically. Cells in which checkpoint control is disrupted are more sensitive to additional genotoxic or microtubular damage. Unbridled cell cycle progression in the presence of such damage is usually lethal, which may explain the selective sensitivity of some cancer cells to DNA-damaging treatments. For this reason, intact components of cell cycle arrest checkpoints are also potential targets for novel antineoplastics, and their inhibition may increase the sensitivity of tumor cells to standard chemotherapy and radiation (1). Many of the compounds under study as anti-tumor agents act at multiple steps in the cell cycle, and their effects may be cytostatic or cytotoxic, depending on the cell cycle status of the target cells. Hence, an understanding of the molecular interactions involved may suggest ways to sensitize cells to the effects of these compounds. In particular, combinations of drugs, applied in a specific sequence, may be used to maneuver a tumor cell population into a state where it is most susceptible to the cytotoxic effects of novel, or indeed traditional, chemotherapeutic agents. Here, we review key aspects of cell cycle and checkpoint control, as well as exploitable abnormalities commonly found in cancer, in order to focus on promising targets of new agents presently in clinical trial or under development.

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 · 10.1172/jci9054

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 464

Metadata

Authors
Shapiro, G. I., & Harper, J. W.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Investigation
Published
1999-12-15
Volume
104
Issue
12
Pages
1645-1653
ISSN
0021-9738 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2014613601
Cited by
464
References
5
FWCI
6.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Anticancer drug targets: cell cycle and checkpoint control. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1172/jci9054
The paper
Shapiro, G. I., & Harper, J. W. (1999). Anticancer drug targets: cell cycle and checkpoint control. Journal of Clinical Investigation. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci9054

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.