Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32729189›Full record

ReviewCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2019

Tunneling nanotubes: A bridge for heterogeneity in glioblastoma and a new therapeutic target?

Varun Subramaniam Venkatesh, Emil Lou

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Editorial: The role of autophagy in cardiovascular disease.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Tunneling Nanotubes: The Cables for Viral Spread and Beyond.Results and problems in cell differentiation · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Tunneling Nanotubes: A New Target for Nanomedicine?International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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.

Varun Subramaniam VenkateshDivision of Hematology, Oncology and Transplantation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.ORCID 0000-0002-1295-0033
Emil LouDivision of Hematology, Oncology and Transplantation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe concept of tumour heterogeneity is not novel but is fast becoming a paradigm by which to explain part of the highly recalcitrant nature of aggressive malignant tumours. Glioblastoma is a prime example of such difficult-to-treat, invasive, and incurable malignancies. With the advent of the post-genomic age and increased access to next-generation sequencing technologies, numerous publications have described the presence and extent of intratumoural and intertumoural heterogeneity present in glioblastoma. Moreover, there have been numerous reports more directly correlating the heterogeneity of glioblastoma to its refractory, reoccurring, and inevitably terminal nature. It is therefore prudent to consider the different forms of heterogeneity seen in glioblastoma and how to harness this understanding to better strategize novel therapeutic approaches. One of the most central questions of tumour heterogeneity is how these numerous different cell types (both tumour and non-tumour) in the tumour mass communicate. RECENT

findingsThis chapter provides a brief review on the variable heterogeneity of glioblastoma, with a focus on cellular heterogeneity and on modalities of communication that can induce further molecular diversity within the complex and ever-evolving tumour microenvironment. We provide particular emphasis on the emerging role of actin-based cellular conduits called tunnelling nanotubes (TNTs) and tumour microtubes (TMs) and outline the perceived current problems in the field that need to be resolved before pharmacological targeting of TNTs can become a reality.

conclusionsWe conclude that TNTs and TMs provide a new and exciting avenue for the therapeutic targeting of glioblastoma and that numerous inroads have already made into TNT and TM biology. However, to target TMs and TNTs, several advances must be made before this aim can become a reality.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsBrain NeoplasmsCell CommunicationCell Culture TechniquesCell Line, TumorCoculture TechniquesGenetic HeterogeneityGlioblastomaHumansMicrotubulesTumor MicroenvironmentXenograft Model Antitumor AssaysAntineoplastic Agentscommunicationglioblastomaheterogeneitytumour communicationtunnelling nanotubes

Identifiers

PMID32729189
PMCPMC7941610
OpenAlexW2944357988

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.