Talk:The Hallmarks of Cancer

Mention on BBC news website

Great idea for this article, explained in this BBC news article. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Cancer?

Would the useful information here be better merged into Cancer? Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If the article received that much attention, I like it having its own page, but a summary of its content could certainly be integrated with in the modern cancer research section of the main article. I'm not too expert in this area, though, so take that in context. Ocaasi ^c 08:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be loathe to merge this with the main cancer page - this paper's publication was a bit of a landmark event in the history of cancer research and its probably notable enough to merit a stand-alone entry. HenryScow (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a landmark paper which represented the state of the art at a particular point of cancer research. It's arguably separately notable from cancer itself, in that the cancer article should reflect the latest scientific consensus, and this article illustrates one historical step on the way to that consensus. This article would serve its distinctive purpose more if it focused on the paper and the circumstances of its publication and immediate reaction. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

good point Martin - I've dug out an anecdote about the origins of the paper that Bob Weinberg tells at conferences - will add it when I get a moment! HenryScow (talk) 14:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

...I'll just drop the idea. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Sequence of "Hallmarks"

The Hanahan and Weinberg article discusses the hallmarks in the sequence (1) Self-sufficiency of growth signalling (2) insensitivity to anti-growth signals (3) Evasion of apoptosis (4) unlimited replication (5) angiogenesis and (6) tissue invasion and metastasis.

In this WP entry, the hallmarks are in a different sequence. I can't think of any reason why we should use a different sequence than the authors used. Since nobody's been active here in a while, I'm going to WP:BEBOLD and change the sequence to match the Cell article. The worst that can happen is that somebody will revert it.

Also, I'd like to expand it a little. This is an important paper, and we should use this entry to make it as easy for a biology student to access the paper as possible.

Also, I think we should list the hallmarks in the introduction, in an easy-to-read form. After all, the six hallmarks are what this is all about.--Nbauman (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Nbauman - much better. I've made a few minor tweaks for language but this looks great now. Am happy to lose the 'self-published source' in the intro - however, it was a conference talk I was at and can personally verify that these stats came from Doug's own mouth! If anyone can find a better link, feel free to replace HenryScow (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What do H&W say about the sequence

Do the traits appear in this or some other order, or do some appear together, or can they appear in different orders in different cancers/patients ? Are some steps required for other steps ?

Unclear wording - "The paper" is never established.

The first paragraph presently talks about "The Hallmarks of Cancer" as simply the characteristics of cancer, and not in direct reference to the paper associated to that term.

The second paragraph then goes on to say "By November 2010, the paper..." without ever establishing which paper is being talked about.

I am far from knowledgeable on this so am hesitant to edit it, I think some rephrasing and linking in a DOI reference to the paper is necessary, and a decision as to if this page is primarily about the paper, or the theory put forth by the paper. 2A01:388:505:150:0:0:1:81 (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The article is clearly about the hallmarks. Unfortunately, the lead skips over the paper and its role in cementing the hallmarks into a cohesive concept. Feel free to add to the lead and fix this omission. The worst that is likely to happen is a rewrite of your words. The article's lead needs some help, so kindly initiate the process. Thanks.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've done a slight rewrite. I think it's probably good to try and keep the first paragraph succinct and then go into what the hallmarks are in the subsequent paragraph? I've also moved up the mention about how cited/referenced the paper is (and thus it's impact on the scientific world), but made it slightly more succinct and fixed the reference. We could potentially even remove the Cancer Research UK statement as it is sort of superseded by the Science Daily one? 2A01:388:505:150:0:0:1:4E (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Your rewrite was beneficial. I copyedited a bit, and am noticing that the second and third paragraphs of the lead are in conflict in that the second lumps the two articles' findings together, whereas the third focuses solely on the second paper. Would you like to amend the second paragraph to have it only discuss the first paper?--Quisqualis (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks for the copyeditting. I've removed one sentence from the second paragraph due to it being effectively identical to that in the third. I think it's good to focus primarily on the original hallmarks in the second, then have the third acknowledge the extension to them. Does any of the other of the second paragraph pertain to the second paper? It doesn't look like it to me, but I'm not a cancer expert. 2A01:388:505:150:0:0:1:23 (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)