2024
DOI: 10.1016/j.bj.2023.100654
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Peto's paradox: Nature has used multiple strategies to keep cancer at bay while evolving long lifespans and large body masses. A systematic review

Matteo Perillo,
Alessia Silla,
Angela Punzo
et al.
Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…shed light on the negative relationship between cellular immortalization, the ability of cells to evade senescence and proliferate indefinitely, and species body mass [ 16 ]. Expanding on this, their latest review delves deeper into Peto's paradox, exploring the evolutionary adaptations that enable species to evolve longevity despite large body mass, while also addressing strategies to mitigate cancer risk in long-lived organisms [ 17 ].…”
Section: Also In This Issuementioning
confidence: 99%
“…shed light on the negative relationship between cellular immortalization, the ability of cells to evade senescence and proliferate indefinitely, and species body mass [ 16 ]. Expanding on this, their latest review delves deeper into Peto's paradox, exploring the evolutionary adaptations that enable species to evolve longevity despite large body mass, while also addressing strategies to mitigate cancer risk in long-lived organisms [ 17 ].…”
Section: Also In This Issuementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Soft tissue tumours are rarely preserved in fossils, and even when present, they may not be recognisable as cancer [126].…”
Section: Cancer Through Timementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, most of the papers of interest are found by the reviewers in the initial part of the abstract screening. In this case, following the example of Perillo et al [13] a two-fold stopping rule for this phase of screening was established: screening was stopped if more than 80 irrelevant papers in a batch of 100 papers were found (stopping rule #1) or when the screeners had performed 8 h of screening each (stopping rule #2), whichever happened first.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%