Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19652704›Full record

ArticlePloS one2009

GWAS meets microarray: are the results of genome-wide association studies and gene-expression profiling consistent? Prostate cancer as an example.

Ivan P Gorlov, Gary E Gallick, Olga Y Gorlova, Christopher Amos, Christopher J Logothetis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. SEPARATING THE CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES IN DISEASE TRANSCRIPTOME.Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing · 2016
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Ivan P GorlovDepartment of Genitourinary Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. ipgorlov@mdanderson.org
Gary E Gallick
Olga Y Gorlova
Christopher Amos
Christopher J Logothetis

Funding

Two-Stage Genome-Wide Association Study in Systemic SclerosisR01AR055258 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI MAYES, MAUREEN MAUREEN · 2008 to 2012
$5.9M
Training Program in Biostatistics for Cancer ResearchT32CA096520 · NCI · RICE UNIVERSITY · PI KIMMEL, MAREK, YUAN, YING · 2003 to 2023
$4.5M
High Density Association Analysis of Lung CancerR01CA121197 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI AMOS, CHRISTOPHER I. · 2007 to 2010
$3.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA121197NCI NIH HHS R01 CA121197-01A2NCI NIH HHS T32 CA096520NIAMS NIH HHS AR055258NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR055258
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenome-wide association studies (GWASs) and global profiling of gene expression (microarrays) are two major technological breakthroughs that allow hypothesis-free identification of candidate genes associated with tumorigenesis. It is not obvious whether there is a consistency between the candidate genes identified by GWAS (GWAS genes) and those identified by profiling gene expression (microarray genes). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsWe used the Cancer Genetic Markers Susceptibility database to retrieve single nucleotide polymorphisms from candidate genes for prostate cancer. In addition, we conducted a large meta-analysis of gene expression data in normal prostate and prostate tumor tissue. We identified 13,905 genes that were interrogated by both GWASs and microarrays. On the basis of P values from GWASs, we selected 1,649 most significantly associated genes for functional annotation by the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Discovery. We also conducted functional annotation analysis using same number of the top genes identified in the meta-analysis of the gene expression data. We found that genes involved in cell adhesion were overrepresented among both the GWAS and microarray genes. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: We conclude that the results of these analyses suggest that combining GWAS and microarray data would be a more effective approach than analyzing individual datasets and can help to refine the identification of candidate genes and functions associated with tumor development.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingGenome-Wide Association StudyBiomarkers, TumorHumansMaleOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisProstatic NeoplasmsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID19652704
PMCPMC2714961

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.