Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Video Abstracts
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Complement Biology and Therapeutics (May 2025)
    • Evolving insights into MASLD and MASH pathogenesis and treatment (Apr 2025)
    • Microbiome in Health and Disease (Feb 2025)
    • Substance Use Disorders (Oct 2024)
    • Clonal Hematopoiesis (Oct 2024)
    • Sex Differences in Medicine (Sep 2024)
    • Vascular Malformations (Apr 2024)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Editorials
    • Commentaries
    • Editor's notes
    • Reviews
    • Viewpoints
    • 100th anniversary
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Video Abstracts
  • In-Press Preview
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Editorials
  • Commentaries
  • Editor's notes
  • Reviews
  • Viewpoints
  • 100th anniversary
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Top
  • View PDF
  • Download citation information
  • Send a comment
  • Terms of use
  • Standard abbreviations
  • Need help? Email the journal
  • Top
  • Version history
  • Article usage
  • Citations to this article

Advertisement

Erratum Free access | 10.1172/JCI25455E1

Stem cell-ness: a “magic marker” for cancer

John P. Lahad, Gordon B. Mills, and Kevin R. Coombes

Find articles by Lahad, J. in: PubMed | Google Scholar

Find articles by Mills, G. in: PubMed | Google Scholar

Find articles by Coombes, K. in: PubMed | Google Scholar

Published August 1, 2005 - More info

Published in Volume 115, Issue 8 on August 1, 2005
J Clin Invest. 2005;115(8):2298–2298. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI25455E1.
© 2005 The American Society for Clinical Investigation
Published August 1, 2005 - Version history
View PDF

Related article:

Stem cell–ness: a “magic marker” for cancer
John P. Lahad, … , Gordon B. Mills, Kevin R. Coombes
John P. Lahad, … , Gordon B. Mills, Kevin R. Coombes
Commentary Article has an altmetric score of 3

Stem cell–ness: a “magic marker” for cancer

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Transcriptional profiling of patient tumors is a much-heralded advancement in cancer therapy, as it provides the opportunity to identify patients who would benefit from more or less aggressive therapy and thus allows the development of individualized treatment. However, translation of this promise into patient benefit has proven challenging. In this issue of the JCI, Glinsky and colleagues used human and murine models to identify a potential stem cell mRNA signature, based on the hypothesis that tumors with stem cell–like characteristics are likely to have a poor prognosis. Remarkably, an 11-gene “expression signature” associated with “stem cell–ness” separated patients with different cancers into good- and poor-prognosis groups. Such a “magic marker” would, if validated, have a major impact on patient care. However, there remain challenges incumbent with creating and validating such signatures.

Authors

John P. Lahad, Gordon B. Mills, Kevin R. Coombes

×

Original citation: J. Clin. Invest.115:1463–1467 (2005). doi:10.1172/JCI25455

Citation for this erratum: J. Clin. Invest.115:2298 (2005). doi:10.1172/JCI25455E1

The key for Figure 1 is incorrect. The dashed line should indicate stem cell-positive and the solid line should indicate stem cell-negative. The correct version of Figure 1 follows.

We regret this error.

Version history
  • Version 1 (August 1, 2005): No description

Article tools

  • View PDF
  • Download citation information
  • Send a comment
  • Terms of use
  • Standard abbreviations
  • Need help? Email the journal

Metrics

  • Article usage
  • Citations to this article

Go to

  • Top
  • Version history
Advertisement
Advertisement

Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts

Referenced in 6 patents
56 readers on Mendeley
See more details