Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20651033›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2010

Genome-wide catalogue of chromosomal aberrations in barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: a high-density single nucleotide polymorphism array analysis.

Jian Gu, Jaffer A Ajani, Ernest T Hawk, Yuanqing Ye, Jeffrey H Lee, Manoop S Bhutani, Wayne L Hofstetter, Stephen G Swisher, Kenneth K Wang, Xifeng Wu

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Molecular Pathology of Gastroesophageal Cancer.Clinics in laboratory medicine · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Molecular Pathology of Gastroesophageal Cancer.Surgical pathology clinics · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jian GuDepartment of Epidemiology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Unit 1340, 1155 Pressler Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA. jiangu@mdanderson.org
Jaffer A Ajani
Ernest T Hawk
Yuanqing Ye
Jeffrey H Lee
Manoop S Bhutani
Wayne L Hofstetter
Stephen G Swisher
Kenneth K Wang
Xifeng Wu
Mayo Clinic · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USWinnMed · US

Funding

Genetic Instability & Risk for Esophageal CarcinomaR01CA111922 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI WU, XIFENG · 2008 to 2012
$2.9M
Molecular Biomarkers as Classifiers to Individualize Therapy of Esophagus CancerR21CA129906 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI AJANI, JAFFER A. · 2009 to 2010
$367k
Molecular Markers of Response to Chemoradiation in Localized Esophageal CancerR21CA127672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI AJANI, JAFFER A. · 2008 to 2009
$312k
NCI NIH HHS CA111922NCI NIH HHS CA127672NCI NIH HHS CA129906NCI NIH HHS R01 CA111922NCI NIH HHS R21 CA127672NCI NIH HHS R21 CA129906
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To better understand the molecular mechanisms behind esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) tumorigenesis, we used high-density single nucleotide polymorphism arrays to profile chromosomal aberrations at each of the four sequential progression stages, Barrett's metaplasia (BM), low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and EAC, in 101 patients. We observed a significant trend toward increasing loss of chromosomes with higher progression stage. For BM, LGD, HGD, and EAC, respectively, the average numbers of chromosome arms with loss per sample were 0.30, 3.21, 7.70, and 11.90 (P for trend = 4.82 x 10(-7)), and the mean percentages of single nucleotide polymorphisms with allele loss were 0.1%, 1.8%, 6.6%, and 17.2% (P for trend = 2.64 x 10(-6)). In LGD, loss of 3p14.2 (68.4%) and 16q23.1 (47.4%) was limited to narrow regions within the FHIT (3p14.2) and WWOX (16q23.1) genes, whereas loss of 9p21 (68.4%) occurred in larger regions. A significant increase in the loss of other chromosomal regions was seen in HGD and EAC. Loss of 17p (47.6%) was one of the most frequent events in EAC. Many recurrent small regions of chromosomal loss disrupted single genes, including FHIT, WWOX, RUNX1, KIF26B, MGC48628, PDE4D, C20orf133, GMDS, DMD, and PARK2, most of which are common fragile site regions in the human genome. However, RUNX1 at 21q22 seemed to be a potential tumor suppressor gene in EAC. Amplifications were less frequent than losses and mostly occurred in EAC. 8q24 (containing Myc) and 8p23.1 (containing CTSB) were the two most frequently amplified regions. In addition, a significant trend toward increasing amplification was associated with higher progression stage.

Indexed as

Chromosome AberrationsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideAdenocarcinomaAdultAgedBarrett EsophagusEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansMaleMiddle AgedOligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis

Identifiers

PMID20651033
PMCPMC3932797
OpenAlexW2125233650

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.