Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40048007›Full record

ReviewJournal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia2025

Mammalian Species-Specific Resistance to Mammary Cancer.

Itamar Barash

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Itamar BarashInstitute of Animal Science, ARO, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan, Israel. itamar.barash@mail.huji.ac.il.ORCID 0000-0002-4082-1343

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumorigenesis in mammals is driven by inherited genetic variants, environmental factors and random errors during normal DNA replication that lead to cancer-causing mutations. These factors initiate uncontrolled cellular proliferation and disrupt the regulation of critical checkpoints. A few mammalian species possess unique protective mechanisms that enable them to resist widespread cancer development and achieve longevity. Tissue-specific tumor protection adds another layer of complexity to this diversity. Breast cancer is a leading cause of human mortality, particularly among females. Driven by the need for new strategies in treatment and prevention, this opinion article explores and supports the idea that herbivores are more resistant to mammary cancer than carnivores and omnivores. This diversity has occurred despite the remarkably similar basic mammary biology. Herbivores' meatless diet cannot explain the differences in cancer resistance, which have accompanied species segregation since the Jurassic era. To investigate the causes of this diversity, the characteristics of tumorigenesis in the human breast-and to a lesser extent in other carnivores-have been compared with data from retrospective analyses of bovine mammary tumor development across various locations over the past century. Well-established genomic, cellular, and systemic triggers of breast cancer exhibit different, or less pronounced tissue-specific activity in the bovine mammary gland, accompanied by novel bovine-specific protective mechanisms. Together, these factors contribute to the near absence of breast cancer in bovines and offer a basis for developing future anticancer strategies.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDisease ResistanceMammary Neoplasms, AnimalAnimalsCattleFemaleHumansMammalsMammary Glands, AnimalSpecies SpecificityBovineBreastCancer resistanceCarnivoreHerbivoreMammary glandOmnivore

Identifiers

PMID40048007
PMCPMC11885404

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.