Hallmarks of Cancer: New Dimensions
Cancer Discovery, 2022 · paper · Biomedicine
A perspective on refining the hallmarks of cancer. It raises phenotypic plasticity as a possible hallmark, nonmutational epigenetic reprogramming and polymorphic microbiomes as enabling characteristics, and senescent cells as tumor microenvironment components.
0 findings
None that passed a second check.
17 minor (typos and the like; most checked by the judge only)
Wording The metabolism hallmark is called "reprogramming cellular metabolism" in the introduction list and the Fig. 1 legend, but "Deregulating cellular metabolism" in the Fig. 1 (left) and Fig. 6 labels and in the next sentence of the introduction.
- p. 1 Introduction, list of eight hallmarks
reprogramming cellular metabolism, and avoiding immune destruction
- p. 2 Figure 1 legend
now described more broadly as “reprogramming cellular metabolism”
- p. 2 Figure 1 left panel label
Deregulating cellular metabolism
- p. 13 Figure 6 label
Deregulating cellular metabolism
Judge's note: Images show the introduction (p.1) listing "reprogramming cellular metabolism", followed by "deregulating cellular metabolism and avoiding immune destruction were segregated as 'emerging hallmarks'". The Fig. 1 legend says the hallmark is "now described more broadly as 'reprogramming cellular metabolism'". The Fig. 1 left-panel label (p.2) and the Fig. 6 label (p.13) both read "Deregulating cellular metabolism". So the paper uses two names for one hallmark. The graphic is adapted from ref. 2, which may explain the old label, but the legend itself announces the new name. This is a naming inconsistency, not a wrong fact.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "an inhibitor of histone modification (an HDAC)": the parenthesis names the enzyme (histone deacetylase), not the HDAC inhibitor that was used.
- p. 8 Epigenetic Regulation of the Stromal Cell Types, left column
an inhibitor of histone modification (an HDAC)
Judge's note: The p.8 image confirms the wording. On p.4 the paper defines HDAC as the enzyme, "histone deacetylase (HDAC)". So the gloss should read "an HDAC inhibitor". This is a wording slip; the meaning can be recovered.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording Dysbiosis is defined on p.8 as "distortions in the microbial populations—dysbiosis", but on p.9 it glosses "the intestinal barrier is disrupted (dysbiosis)".
- p. 8 Diverse Modulatory Effects of the Gut Microbiome
distortions in the microbial populations—dysbiosis—in the colon
- p. 9 right column, butyrate paragraph
the intestinal barrier is disrupted (dysbiosis)
Judge's note: Both passages are confirmed in the images. The second parenthesis attaches the term to barrier disruption rather than to the altered microbial populations defined earlier. The two often occur together, so this is a loose usage of the term, not a factual error.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Wording "creation of tumor-promoting or tumor-antagonizing immune microenvironments, consequently protecting against or facilitating tumorigenesis" has its second pair in the reverse order of the first.
- p. 9 Gut microbiome, immune paragraph
creation of tumor-promoting or tumor-antagonizing immune microenvironments, consequently protecting against or facilitating tumorigenesis
Only the authors can say what is right here.
Judge's note: The p.9 image confirms the wording. Read in parallel, it pairs tumor-promoting with "protecting against". "Respectively" is absent, so the sentence is ambiguous rather than plainly wrong. Swapping to "facilitating or protecting against" would make the order match.
Second check: another model agreed
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Garbled phrase "cells that form the exocrine and pancreas and the ductal adenocarcinomas" should read "the exocrine pancreas and the ductal adenocarcinomas".
- p. 3 Dedifferentiation, right column, last line
the exocrine and pancreas and the ductal adenocarcinomas
- p. 3 Dedifferentiation, islet tumor paragraph
form the exocrine and pancreas and the ductal adenocarcinomas
- p. 3
exocrine and pancreas and the ductal adenocarcinomas
Judge's note: The p.3 page image (right column, last line) shows "the exocrine and pancreas and the ductal adenocarcinomas" in the running text. This is not an extraction artefact. The first "and" is spurious.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "melanomas indirectly suppresses MITF1" uses MITF1, whereas the same gene is MITF elsewhere in the paragraph and in the ref. 10 title.
- p. 3 Dedifferentiation, right column
indirectly suppresses MITF1
Judge's note: The p.3 image shows italic "MITF1", set as the gene name rather than as a superscript reference. The paragraph otherwise uses "MITF" (lines 234, 249, 255), and the ref. 10 title has "MITF". This is an inconsistent gene symbol.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspelling "D-2-hydroxygluterate (D2HG)"; the correct form is "D-2-hydroxyglutarate".
- p. 4 Blocked Differentiation, right column
D-2-hydroxygluterate (D2HG)
Judge's note: The p.4 image shows "D-2-hydroxygluterate". The metabolite is 2-hydroxyglutarate, and the reference list spells it this way.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "HNF4a" is set with a Latin a, whereas the paper uses a Greek alpha elsewhere (RARα, αKG) and ref. 21 has "HNF-4α".
- p. 4 Blocked Differentiation
HNF4a
Judge's note: The p.4 image shows "HNF4a" twice with a Latin 'a'. On the same page αKG and RARα use the Greek letter, and the ref. 21 title reads "HNF-4α". This is a cosmetic inconsistency.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "Loss of either PTF1 or MIST1 expression" uses PTF1, whereas the surrounding text says PTF1a.
- p. 5 Transdifferentiation, left column
Loss of either PTF1 or MIST1 expression
Judge's note: The p.5 image shows "PTF1" here and "PTF1a" in the neighbouring sentences (text lines 401, 416, 420, 435). The ref. 25 title uses "PTF1" for the complex, so either form can be defended, but here the paragraph refers to the expression of one factor. Minor consistency point.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspelling "nonmutational epigenetic reprograming" in the Synopsis; the paper elsewhere spells it "reprogramming".
- p. 8 Synopsis (epigenetic section), left column
nonmutational epigenetic reprograming will
Judge's note: The p.8 image shows "reprograming" with a single m. The section heading and other uses spell it "reprogramming".
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo The Fig. 4 list under "Modulating tumor" reads "Immune evasions"; the other items are singular (e.g. "Immune evasion").
- p. 9 Figure 4, right panel list 'Modulating tumor'
Immune evasions
Judge's note: The p.9 Fig. 4 image shows "Immune evasions" among Growth, Inflammation, Genome instability and Therapy resistance. The plural is a cosmetic slip.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Subject–verb disagreement: "persuasive functional studies, involving fecal transplants ... has established a principle" should read "have established".
- p. 9 Diverse modulatory effects of the gut microbiome, para 1
has established a principle
Judge's note: The p.9 image (left column) shows the plural subject "studies" with the verb "has established".
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Misspelling "a peptidoglycan hydrolyase called SagA"; the correct form is "hydrolase".
- p. 10 Gut microbiome section, left column
pepti-doglycan hydrolyase called SagA
Judge's note: The p.10 page image (left column) shows "pepti-doglycan hydrolyase called SagA". SagA is a peptidoglycan hydrolase.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo "granulocytic myeloid cells (gMDSC)": the expansion leaves out "-derived suppressor" and so does not match the abbreviation.
- p. 10 Gut microbiome, cholangiocarcinoma example
granulocytic myeloid cells (gMDSC)
Judge's note: The p.10 image confirms the wording. gMDSC stands for granulocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells, which matches the suppressive role described in the same sentence. The expansion is incomplete.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Subject–verb disagreement on p. 10: "the normal and pathogenic roles of resident microbiota in these diverse locations is still emerging"; the plural subject 'roles' needs 'are'.
- p. 10 Beyond the Gut, para 1
in these diverse locations is still emerging
Judge's note: I checked the crop of PDF page 10 (Beyond the Gut, paragraph 1). The text there reads "...the normal and pathogenic roles of resident microbiota in these diverse locations is still emerging." The head noun 'roles' is plural, so the verb should be 'are'. This is a cosmetic grammar error.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Wrong word form on p. 11: "which can seeming be alternatively induced in the same senescing cell type"; this should read 'seemingly'.
- p. 11 Senescent cells, right column
can seeming be alternatively induced
- p. 11 Senescent cells, last paragraph
which can seeming be alternatively induced
Judge's note: Both crops of PDF page 11 (right column, end of the Senescent cells section) show "can seeming be alternatively induced". The word is printed whole on one line, so this is not a line-break or extraction artefact. The adverb 'seemingly' is needed.
Second check: none (judge only)
Report a problem with this finding
Typo Nonstandard gene/protein notation on p. 11: "the cell-cycle inhibitor p16–INK4a", where a dash is set in the superscript before INK4a (conventionally p16INK4a; ref 122 writes p16(Ink4a)).
- p. 11 Senescent cells, left column
p16−INK4a
Judge's note: The crop of PDF page 11 (left column) shows p16 followed by a superscript '–INK4a', so the dash is really there in print and is not an extraction artefact. Reference 122 in the reference list writes the name as "p16(Ink4a)-positive cells". The sentence says the cells are 'characteristically expressing' the protein, so a reader is unlikely to take the dash to mean deficiency. I therefore rate this a minor typographic inconsistency rather than a substantive error.
Second check: none (judge only)