ArticleBMC medical genomics2011
Distinctions in gastric cancer gene expression signatures derived from laser capture microdissection versus histologic macrodissection.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Transcriptional Response of Ovine Lung to Infection with Jaagsiekte Sheep Retrovirus.Journal of virology · 2019Article
- Article
- Computer-Aided Laser Dissection: A Microdissection Workflow Leveraging Image Analysis Tools.Journal of pathology informatics · 2018Article
- Image-guided Coring for Large-scale Studies in Molecular Pathology.Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM · 2016Article
- SIVQ-LCM protocol for the ArcturusXT instrument.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2014Article
- Discovery and validation of an INflammatory PROtein-driven GAstric cancer Signature (INPROGAS) using antibody microarray-based oncoproteomics.Oncotarget · 2014Article
- A mill based instrument and software system for dissecting slide-mounted tissue that provides digital guidance and documentation.BMC clinical pathology · 2013Article
- Epstein-barr virus infected gastric adenocarcinoma expresses latent and lytic viral transcripts and has a distinct human gene expression profile.Infectious agents and cancer · 2012Article
- Performance of Automated Dissection on Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissue Sections for the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
- Digitally guided microdissection aids somatic mutation detection in difficult to dissect tumors.Cancer geneticsArticle
- Transcriptome Analysis and the Prognostic Role of NUDC in Diffuse and Intestinal Gastric Cancer.Technology in cancer research & treatmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer samples obtained by histologic macrodissection contain a relatively high stromal content that may significantly influence gene expression profiles. Differences between the gene expression signature derived from macrodissected gastric cancer samples and the signature obtained from isolated gastric cancer epithelial cells from the same biopsies using laser-capture microdissection (LCM) were evaluated for their potential experimental biases.
methodsRNA was isolated from frozen tissue samples of gastric cancer biopsies from 20 patients using both histologic macrodissection and LCM techniques. RNA from LCM was subject to an additional round of T7 RNA amplification. Expression profiling was performed using Affymetrix HG-U133A arrays. Genes identified in the expression signatures from each tissue processing method were compared to the set of genes contained within chromosomal regions found to harbor copy number aberrations in the tumor samples by array CGH and to proteins previously identified as being overexpressed in gastric cancer.
resultsGenes shown to have increased copy number in gastric cancer were also found to be overexpressed in samples obtained by macrodissection (LS P value < 10(-5)), but not in array data generated using microdissection. A set of 58 previously identified genes overexpressed in gastric cancer was also enriched in the gene signature identified by macrodissection (LS P < 10(-5)), but not in the signature identified by microdissection (LS P = 0.013). In contrast, 66 genes previously reported to be underexpressed in gastric cancer were enriched in the gene signature identified by microdissection (LS P < 10-5), but not in the signature identified by macrodissection (LS P = 0.89).
conclusionsThe tumor sampling technique biases the microarray results. LCM may be a more sensitive collection and processing method for the identification of potential tumor suppressor gene candidates in gastric cancer using expression profiling.
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.