Evidence mapPaperPMID 28169991Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2017

A spatiotemporal hypothesis for the regulation, role, and targeting of AMPK in prostate cancer.

Ayesha S Khan, Daniel E Frigo

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Energy Metabolism Profiling of Human Colorectal Tumours.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ayesha S KhanCenter for Nuclear Receptors and Cell Signaling, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, 3517 Cullen Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77204, USA.
Daniel E FrigoCenter for Nuclear Receptors and Cell Signaling, Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, 3517 Cullen Boulevard, Houston, Texas 77204, USA.
University of Houston · US

Funding

NCI NIH HHS R01 CA184208
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 5'-AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) is a master regulator of cellular homeostasis. Despite AMPK's known function in physiology, its role in pathological processes such as prostate cancer is enigmatic. However, emerging evidence is now beginning to decode the paradoxical role of AMPK in cancer and, therefore, inform clinicians if - and how - AMPK could be therapeutically targeted. Spatiotemporal regulation of AMPK complexes could be one of the mechanisms that governs this kinase's role in cancer. We hypothesize that different upstream stimuli will activate select subcellular AMPK complexes. This hypothesis is supported by the distinct subcellular locations of the various AMPK subunits. Each of these unique AMPK complexes regulates discrete downstream processes that can be tumour suppressive or oncogenic. AMPK's final biological output is then determined by the weighted net function of these downstream signalling events, influenced by additional prostate-specific signalling.

Indexed as

AMP-Activated Protein KinasesAnimalsBiomarkers, TumorDrug Delivery SystemsEnzyme ActivatorsHumansMaleProstatic NeoplasmsSignal TransductionTime FactorsAMP-Activated Protein KinasesBiomarkers, TumorEnzyme Activators

Identifiers

PMID28169991
PMCPMC5672799
OpenAlexW2587210054

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.