ArticleGynecologic oncology2013
Genetic variations in EGFR and ERBB4 increase susceptibility to cervical cancer.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systems Analysis of miRNA-Mediated Host Regulatory Response in HPV-Associated Cervical Malignancy.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Two tSNPs in BRIP1 are associated with breast cancer during TDT analysis.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2021Article
- Genetic variations in human papillomavirus and cervical cancer outcomes.International journal of cancer · 2019Article
- Lipid raft localization of epidermal growth factor receptor alters matrix metalloproteinase-1 expression in SiHa cells via the MAPK/ERK signaling pathway.Oncology letters · 2016Article
- Novel Somatic Copy Number Alteration Identified for Cervical Cancer in the Mexican American Population.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Article
- Spatiotemporal control of estrogen-responsive transcription in ERα-positive breast cancer cells.Oncogene · 2016Article
- Polymorphisms in immune mediators associate with risk of cervical cancer.Gynecologic oncology · 2014Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesInherited genetic variability contributes to susceptibility to cervical cancer. We investigated the association of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the human epidermal growth factor receptor (ERBB) family with cervical cancer.
methodsWe used the transmission disequilibrium test (TDT) to look for excessive transmission of tag single nucleotide polymorphisms (tSNPs) in ERBB family members EGFR, ERBB2, ERBB3, and ERBB4 in a large sample of women with invasive and in situ cervical cancer and their biological parents (628 trios). The study used a discovery set of trios (244) analyzed by Illumina GoldenGate in which SNPs reaching a P<.05 were re-tested by TaqMan in the combined set of 628. We also explored collaborative effects of different ERBB alleles.
resultsBased on single SNP TDT tests we identified 16 significant SNPs in the discover stage and six of 14 SNPs that could be assayed by TaqMan were significantly overtransmitted in women with cervical cancer in the combined replication set. Four SNPs were located in intron 1 of EGFR and two SNPs in intron 24 of ERBB4. The EGFR variants are located near multiple enhancers, silencers, and the previously identified functional common polymorphisms in intron 1.
conclusionsOur data provide evidence for the involvement of intron 1 EGFR variants and intron 24 ERBB4 variants in modulating risk for the development of in situ and invasive cervical cancer. These variants should be examined in additional populations and functional studies would be needed to confirm this hypothesis.
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.