ArticlePloS one2013
Testing the utility of an integrated analysis of copy number and transcriptomics datasets for inferring gene regulatory relationships.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of multiple matched copy number and transcriptomics data sets for inferring gene regulatory relationships.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Investigating inter-chromosomal regulatory relationships through a comprehensive meta-analysis of matched copy number and transcriptomics data sets.BMC genomics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Correlation patterns between matched copy number variation and gene expression data in cancer samples enable the inference of causal gene regulatory relationships by exploiting the natural randomization of such systems. The aim of this study was to test and verify experimentally the accuracy of a causal inference approach based on genomic randomization using esophageal cancer samples. Two candidates with strong regulatory effects emerging from our analysis are components of growth factor receptors, and implicated in cancer development, namely ERBB2 and FGFR2. We tested experimentally two ERBB2 and three FGFR2 regulated interactions predicted by the statistical analysis, all of which were confirmed. We also applied the method in a meta-analysis of 10 cancer datasets and tested 15 of the predicted regulatory interactions experimentally. Three additional predicted ERBB2 regulated interactions were confirmed, as well as interactions regulated by ARPC1A and FANCG. Overall, two thirds of experimentally tested predictions were confirmed.
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.