Evidence map›Paper›PMID 11677281›Full record

ArticlePostgraduate medical journal2001

Mutagen sensitivity and p53 expression in colorectal cancer in China.

L Shao, M Lai, Q Huang

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Postgraduate medical journal, 2001. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 87% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

L ShaoZhejiang University, School of Medicine, Department of Pathology, Hangzhou, 310031, Peoples Republic of China.
M Lai
Q Huang
Zhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study was designed to investigate DNA damage and/or repair capability, non-random chromatid breakage, and p53 expression in patients with colorectal cancer.

methodsThe bleomycin sensitivity assay was used in a case-control study to compare the DNA damage repair system between colorectal cancer patients and controls. G-banding was used to search for non-random chromatid breaks. Immunocytochemistry was used to investigate p53 expression in tumour tissues and adjacent normal tissues.

resultsIt was found that cases typically had a higher number of chromosome breaks than controls (0.84 v 0.69 breaks/cell, p<0.01). After correction by sex and age, the difference was still significant (F=4.38, p<0.05). The correlation coefficient between mutagen sensitivity and age was 0.31(p<0.05) in controls and 0.18 (p>0.05) in cases. The ratio of odds ratios among bleomycin resistant, sensitive, and hypersensitive classes was 1:2.31:3.85. Overexpression of p53 was detected in 25 of 47 tumour tissues independent of tumour stage. Cases who had a family history of cancer were susceptible to the p53 aberration (p<0.05). Chromosomes 1p, 5q, and 14q were susceptible to breakage in patients with colorectal cancer.

conclusionPatients with colorectal cancer show increased bleomycin induced chromatid breaks and may have minor DNA repair deficiencies. p53 aberration is an early event in the development of colorectal cancer, but no definite correlation is found between p53 overexpression and mutagen sensitivity.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsAnalysis of VarianceAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticBleomycinCase-Control StudiesChromatidsChromosomes, Human, Pair 1Chromosomes, Human, Pair 14Chromosomes, Human, Pair 5Colorectal NeoplasmsDNA RepairFemaleAntimetabolites, AntineoplasticBleomycin

Identifiers

PMID11677281
PMCPMC1742176
OpenAlexW2105369456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.