Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20846456›Full record

ArticleMolecular cancer2010

Molecular detection, quantification, and isolation of Streptococcus gallolyticus bacteria colonizing colorectal tumors: inflammation-driven potential of carcinogenesis via IL-1, COX-2, and IL-8.

Ahmed S Abdulamir, Rand R Hafidh, Fatimah Abu Bakar

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 142 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
142citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

142 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 233 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Systematic review: The gut microbiota as a link between colorectal cancer and obesity.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Trending ileal microbiome dysbiosis over time as an early assessment of intestinal transplant rejection risk.American journal of transplantation : official journal of the American Society of Transplantation and the American Society of Transplant Surgeons · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. The evolving story ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

82 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Ahmed S AbdulamirInstitute of Bioscience, University Putra Malaysia, Selangor, Malaysia. ahmsah73@yahoo.com
Rand R Hafidh
Fatimah Abu Bakar
Universiti Putra Malaysia · MY

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) has long been associated with bacteremia and/or endocarditis by Streptococcus gallolyticus member bacteria (SGMB) but the direct colonization of SGMB along with its molecular carcinogenic role, if any, has not been investigated. We assessed the colonization of SGMB in CRC patients with history of bacteremia (CRC-w/bac) and without history of bacteremia (CRC-wo/bac) by isolating SGMB from feces, mucosal surfaces of colorectum, and colorectal tissues and detecting SGMB DNA, via PCR and in situ hybridization (ISH) assays targeting SodA gene in colorectal tissues. Moreover, mRNA of IL1, IL-8, COX-2, IFN-γ, c-Myc, and Bcl-2 in colorectal tissues of studied groups was assessed via ISH and RT-PCR.

resultsSGMB were found to be remarkably isolated in tumorous (TU) and non-tumorous (NTU) tissues of CRC-w/bac, 20.5% and 17.3%, and CRC-wo/bac, 12.8% and 11.5%, respectively while only 2% of control tissues revealed SGMB (P < 0.05); such contrast was not found in mucosal and fecal isolation of SGMB. The positive detection of SGMB DNA in TU and NTU of CRC-w/bac and CRC-wo/bac via PCR, 48.7%, 35.9%, 32.7%, and 23%, respectively, and ISH, 46.1%, 30.7%, 28.8%, and 17.3%, respectively, was higher than in control tissues, 4 and 2%, respectively (P < 0.05). SGMB count measured via quantitative PCR of SGMB DNA in terms of copy number (CN), in TU and NTU of CRC-w/bac and CRC-wo/bac, 2.96-4.72, 1.29-2.81, 2.16-2.92, and 0.67-2.07 log10 CN/g respectively, showed higher colonization in TU than in NTU and in CRC-w/bac than in CRC-wo/bac (P < 0.05). The PCR-based mRNA ratio and ISH-based percentage of positively stained cells of IL-1, 1.77 and 70.3%, COX-2, 1.63 and 44.8%, and IL-8, 1.73 and 70.3%, respectively, rather than IFN-γ, c-Myc, and Bcl-2, were higher in SGMB positive patients than in control or SGMB negative patients (P < 0.05).

conclusionsThe current study indicated that colorectal cancer is remarkably associated with SGMB; moreover, molecular detection of SGMB in CRC was superior to link SGMB with CRC tumors highlighting a possible direct and active role of SGMB in CRC development through most probably inflammation-based sequel of tumor development or propagation via, but not limited to, IL-1, COX-2, and IL-8.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsCyclooxygenase 2DNA, BacterialFemaleHumansIn Situ HybridizationInterferon-gammaInterleukin-1Interleukin-8MaleMiddle AgedProto-Oncogene Proteins c-bcl-2Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-mycReverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain ReactionStreptococcusCyclooxygenase 2DNA, BacterialInterferon-gammaInterleukin-1Interleukin-8MYC protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins c-bcl-2Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-mycPTGS2 protein, human

Identifiers

PMID20846456
PMCPMC2946291
OpenAlexW2158782355

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.