Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17683614›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2007

Portraits of breast cancer progression.

Gul S Dalgin, Gabriela Alexe, Daniel Scanfeld, Pablo Tamayo, Jill P Mesirov, Shridar Ganesan, Charles DeLisi, Gyan Bhanot

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. The prognostic significance of co-existence ductal carcinomaAnnals of translational medicine · 2019
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Ductal carcinoma in situ: terminology, classification, and natural history.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2010
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Simultaneous class discovery and classification of microarray data using spectral analysis.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2009
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Gul S DalginBoston University, Boston, MA 02215, USA. sdalgin@bu.edu
Gabriela Alexe
Daniel Scanfeld
Pablo Tamayo
Jill P Mesirov
Shridar Ganesan
Charles DeLisi
Gyan Bhanot
Broad Institute · USBoston University · USCenter for Systems Biology · USRutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClustering analysis of microarray data is often criticized for giving ambiguous results because of sensitivity to data perturbation or clustering techniques used. In this paper, we describe a new method based on principal component analysis and ensemble consensus clustering that avoids these problems.

resultsWe illustrate the method on a public microarray dataset from 36 breast cancer patients of whom 31 were diagnosed with at least two of three pathological stages of disease (atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Our method identifies an optimum set of genes and divides the samples into stable clusters which correlate with clinical classification into Luminal, Basal-like and Her2+ subtypes. Our analysis reveals a hierarchical portrait of breast cancer progression and identifies genes and pathways for each stage, grade and subtype. An intriguing observation is that the disease phenotype is distinguishable in ADH and progresses along distinct pathways for each subtype. The genetic signature for disease heterogeneity across subtypes is greater than the heterogeneity of progression from DCIS to IDC within a subtype, suggesting that the disease subtypes have distinct progression pathways. Our method identifies six disease subtype and one normal clusters. The first split separates the normal samples from the cancer samples. Next, the cancer cluster splits into low grade (pathological grades 1 and 2) and high grade (pathological grades 2 and 3) while the normal cluster is unchanged. Further, the low grade cluster splits into two subclusters and the high grade cluster into four. The final six disease clusters are mapped into one Luminal A, three Luminal B, one Basal-like and one Her2+.

conclusionWe confirm that the cancer phenotype can be identified in early stage because the genes altered in this stage progressively alter further as the disease progresses through DCIS into IDC. We identify six subtypes of disease which have distinct genetic signatures and remain separated in the clustering hierarchy. Our findings suggest that the heterogeneity of disease across subtypes is higher than the heterogeneity of the disease progression within a subtype, indicating that the subtypes are in fact distinct diseases.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsArtificial IntelligenceBiomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, DuctalDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedDisease ProgressionFemaleGene Expression ProfilingHumansNeoplasm ProteinsOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPattern Recognition, AutomatedPrincipal Component AnalysisReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityBiomarkers, TumorNeoplasm Proteins

Identifiers

PMID17683614
PMCPMC1978212
OpenAlexW1970586717

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.