Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23845084›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2013

Coexpression analysis of large cancer datasets provides insight into the cellular phenotypes of the tumour microenvironment.

Tamasin N Doig, David A Hume, Thanasis Theocharidis, John R Goodlad, Christopher D Gregory, Tom C Freeman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Association analysis of melanophilin (Archives animal breeding · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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

6 authors.

Tamasin N DoigCentre for Inflammation Research, University of Edinburgh, The Queen’s Medical Research Institute, Edinburgh, UK.
David A Hume
Thanasis Theocharidis
John R Goodlad
Christopher D Gregory
Tom C Freeman

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/F003722/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/G022607/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/I001107/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/05191131Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20211552Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20251969Medical Research Council G0901697
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiopsies taken from individual tumours exhibit extensive differences in their cellular composition due to the inherent heterogeneity of cancers and vagaries of sample collection. As a result genes expressed in specific cell types, or associated with certain biological processes are detected at widely variable levels across samples in transcriptomic analyses. This heterogeneity also means that the level of expression of genes expressed specifically in a given cell type or process, will vary in line with the number of those cells within samples or activity of the pathway, and will therefore be correlated in their expression.

resultsUsing a novel 3D network-based approach we have analysed six large human cancer microarray datasets derived from more than 1,000 individuals. Based upon this analysis, and without needing to isolate the individual cells, we have defined a broad spectrum of cell-type and pathway-specific gene signatures present in cancer expression data which were also found to be largely conserved in a number of independent datasets.

conclusionsThe conserved signature of the tumour-associated macrophage is shown to be largely-independent of tumour cell type. All stromal cell signatures have some degree of correlation with each other, since they must all be inversely correlated with the tumour component. However, viewed in the context of established tumours, the interactions between stromal components appear to be multifactorial given the level of one component e.g. vasculature, does not correlate tightly with another, such as the macrophage.

Indexed as

Databases, GeneticGene Expression ProfilingComputer GraphicsConserved SequenceGenes, NeoplasmHumansNeoplasmsPhenotypeTranscription, GeneticTumor Microenvironment

Identifiers

PMID23845084
PMCPMC3721986

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.