ArticleBMC cancer2010
Potential pitfalls in MitoChip detected tumor-specific somatic mutations: a call for caution when interpreting patient data.
Article in BMC cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Re-evaluating data quality of dog mitochondrial, Y chromosomal, and autosomal SNPs genotyped by SNP array.Zoological research · 2016Article
- Roles of Mitochondrial DNA Changes on Cancer Initiation and Progression.Cell biology : research & therapy · 2012Article
- Review
- Mitochondrial subversion in cancer.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2011Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSeveral investigators have employed high throughput mitochondrial sequencing array (MitoChip) in clinical studies to search mtDNA for markers linked to cancers. In consequence, a host of somatic mtDNA mutations have been identified as linked to different types of cancers. However, closer examination of these data show that there are a number of potential pitfalls in the detection tumor-specific somatic mutations in clinical case studies, thus urging caution in the interpretation of mtDNA data to the patients. This study examined mitochondrial sequence variants demonstrated in cancer patients, and assessed the reliability of using detected patterns of polymorphisms in the early diagnosis of cancer.
methodsPublished entire mitochondrial genomes from head and neck, adenoid cystic carcinoma, sessile serrated adenoma, and lung primary tumor from clinical patients were examined in a phylogenetic context and compared with known, naturally occurring mutations which characterize different populations.
resultsThe phylogenetic linkage analysis of whole arrays of mtDNA mutations from patient cancerous and non-cancerous tissue confirmed that artificial recombination events occurred in studies of head and neck, adenoid cystic carcinoma, sessile serrated adenoma, and lung primary tumor. Our phylogenetic analysis of these tumor and control leukocyte mtDNA haplotype sequences shows clear cut evidence of mixed ancestries found in single individuals.
conclusionsOur study makes two prescriptions: both in the clinical situation and in research 1. more care should be taken in maintaining sample identity and 2. analysis should always be undertaken with respect to all the data available and within an evolutionary framework to eliminate artifacts and mix-ups.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.