ReviewBiomedicines2025
Transcriptomic Comparisons of Somatic and Cancer Stem Cells.
Review in Biomedicines, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The neural stem cell‑NSCLC axis: Molecular drivers, microenvironment crosstalk and emerging therapies (Review).International journal of oncology · 2026Review
- Exploratory Expression Analysis of Stem Cell and Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition Markers in Ameloblastoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stem cells are essential for tissue maintenance, repair, and regeneration, yet their dysregulation gives rise to cancer stem cells (CSCs), which drive tumor progression, metastasis, and therapy resistance. Despite extensive research on stemness and oncogenesis, a critical gap remains in our understanding of how the transcriptomic landscapes of normal somatic stem cells (SSCs) diverge from those of CSCs to enable malignancy. This review synthesizes current knowledge of the key signaling pathways (Wnt, Notch, Hedgehog, TGF-β), transcription factors (Oct4, Sox2, Nanog, c-Myc, YAP/TAZ), and epigenetic mechanisms (chromatin remodeling, DNA methylation, microRNA regulation) that govern stemness in SSCs and are hijacked or dysregulated in CSCs. We highlight how context-specific modulation of these pathways distinguishes physiological regeneration from tumorigenesis. Importantly, we discuss the role of epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), cellular plasticity, and microenvironmental cues in reprogramming and maintaining CSC phenotypes. By integrating transcriptomic and epigenetic insights across cancer biology and regenerative medicine, this review provides a framework for identifying vulnerabilities specific to CSCs while still preserving normal stem cell function. Understanding these distinctions is essential for the development of targeted therapies that minimize damage to healthy tissues and advance precision oncology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.