Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20418938›Full record

ArticleEplasty2010

Identification of novel keloid biomarkers through profiling of tissue biopsies versus cell cultures in keloid margin specimens compared to adjacent normal skin.

Barbara Shih, Duncan Angus McGrouther, Ardeshir Bayat

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eplasty, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Immunological mechanisms of scarring and their psychological impact on patients.American journal of clinical and experimental immunology · 2021
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Proteoglycans in Normal and Healing Skin.Advances in wound care · 2015
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Barbara ShihPlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Research, Epithelial Sciences, School of Translational Medicine, Manchester Interdisciplinary Biocentre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Duncan Angus McGrouther
Ardeshir Bayat
University of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveKeloid disease (KD) is a benign fibroproliferative skin tumor that results from abnormal wound healing and has no single definitive treatment. This study aims to identify KD biomarkers, which are cellular mediators that can serve as indicators of normal, pathological, and therapeutic processes.

methodsBioinformatics analytic approaches, including comprehensive literature searches and DAVID Bioinformatics Resources 2008, were performed on the established KD linkage and previously reported microarray data to identify potential candidate genes for the study. Keloid margins and unaffected skin were obtained from KD patients (n = 4). RNA was extracted from the biopsies and second-passage culture equivalents. Reverse-transcriptase quantitative polymerase chain reactions were used to determine the gene expression levels. Student t tests were used to analyze the statistical significance in differential gene expressions.

resultsNineteen candidate genes were initially selected by bioinformatics analysis. Of the 19 genes, 10 were significantly (P < .05) upregulated in keloid margin biopsy specimens. The top-5 fold changes range from 10-fold to 175-fold, including aggrecan; asporin; inhibin, beta A; tumor necrosis factor-alpha inducible protein 6; and chromosome 5 open reading frame 13. There was no significant differential gene expression between the fibroblasts established using keloid margin or internal control sites.

conclusionsThe transcriptomic data generated from cultures did not consistently correlate to the biopsy equivalents. This study has demonstrated 10 genes that are significantly upregulated in biopsy samples of keloid margin, 5 of which have a fold change higher than 10-fold. Importantly these genes may serve as a potential biomarker for KD.

Identifiers

PMID20418938
PMCPMC2851107
OpenAlexW1552427459

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.