Stochastic state transitions give rise to phenotypic equilibrium in populations of cancer cells.

By Piyush B. Gupta, Christine M. Fillmore, Guozhi Jiang, S. Shapira, Kai Tao, Charlotte Kuperwasser, Eric S. Lander. Cell, 2011

1,359 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Modeling and Simulation, Molecular Biology, Oncology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fa398eb0c18d9ae8b0c1fcec2da656e3d18cdfb6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Modeling and Simulation

1. Alexander van Oudenaarden

In Molecular Biology

1. R. Weinberg
2. Zena Werb
3. V. Plaks
4. J. Dick
5. Niwen Kong
6. Michelle Arkin
7. T. Shibue
8. Richard A. Young

In Oncology

1. R. Weinberg
2. Zena Werb
3. V. Plaks
4. Antonija Krešo
5. J. Dick
6. Niwen Kong
7. S. Morrison
8. Christine L. Chaffer

Citations in the corpus

• Evolution of the cancer stem cell model. (2014, positive): “…toward equilibrium proportions was the result of interconversion between different phenotypic states, which can be modeled as stochastic processes that occur with each cell division using the Markov process, where interconversion rates depend only on the cell’s current state (Gupta et al., 2011).”
• Pharmacological brake-release of mRNA translation enhances cognitive memory (2013, background): “This reduction in cell survival resulted from activation of apoptosis as the activity of the executioner caspases 3 and/or 7 was significantly induced under these conditions (Figure 5B; Salvesen and Ashkenazi, 2011).”
• Slug and Sox9 Cooperatively Determine the Mammary Stem Cell State (2012, positive): “Recent studies using immortalized or cancer cell lines have shown that nonstem cells can dedifferentiate to stem-like cells either spontaneously or under specific culture conditions (Chaffer et al., 2011; Gupta et al., 2011; Scheel et al., 2011).”
• The Cancer Stem Cell Niche: How Essential is the Niche in Regulating Stemness of Tumor Cells? (2015, positive): “Since regaining tumor-initiating capacity is potentially possible (Gupta et al., 2011), it is essential to understand how the TME and the CSC niche within it promote CSC phenotypes.”
• Cancer stem cells: impact, heterogeneity, and uncertainty. (2012, background): “Recent studies have suggested that the differentiation of cancer stem cells into nontumorigenic cells may be reversible (Chaffer et al., 2011; Gupta et al., 2011).”
• Caspases and their substrates (2017, background): “similarity and biological function.(15) Group I comprises the inflammatory caspases-1, -4, and -5 (caspase-11 in mouse), based on the commonalities of having a long caspaserecruitment domain and a preference for a large aromatic or hydrophobic residue at the P4 position.”
• The hippocampus and related neocortical structures in memory transformation. (2018, background): “Earlier work by Goshen et al. [83] had shown not only that hippocampal cells continue to be involved in the memory trace as long as four weeks after acquisition, but that they contribute directly to the expression of remote memory.”
• The restless engram: consolidations never end. (2012, background): “This question was recently revisited using rapid optogenetic silencing of the hippocampus (Goshen et al., 2011).”
• Poised chromatin at the ZEB1 promoter enables cell plasticity and enhances tumorigenicity (2013, positive): “We and others have recently demonstrated that nonCSCs can acquire CSC-like activity under certain conditions (Chaffer et al., 2011; Gupta et al., 2011; Roesch et al., 2010).”