ArticlePharmacogenomics and personalized medicine2013
Lack of correlation between in silico projection of function and quantitative real-time PCR-determined gene expression levels in colon tissue.
Article in Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genes, environment and gene expression in colon tissue: a pathway approach to determining functionality.International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics · 2016Article
- Medical genomics: The intricate path from genetic variant identification to clinical interpretation.Applied & translational genomics · 2014Review
- Influence of CHIEF pathway genes on gene expression: a pathway approach to functionality.International journal of molecular epidemiology and genetics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There are a number of in silico programs that use algorithms and external web sources to predict the effect of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). While many of these programs have been shown to predict accurately the effect of SNPs in functional areas of the gene, such as 5' upstream or coding regions, empiric research may be warranted to confirm the functional consequences of SNPs that are predicted to have little to no effect. We compared predictions from FASTSNP (Function Analysis and Selection Tool for Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) and F-SNP (Functional Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) with experimentally derived genotype-phenotype correlations to determine the accuracy of these programs in predicting SNP functionality. We used normal colon tissue to evaluate 24 TagSNPs within six genes. Two of 16 SNPs that were predicted to have no functional effect in FASTSNP were significantly associated with gene expression. Only one of the eight SNPs that were predicted to have a low to high effect was significantly associated with gene expression. While the two in silico programs that were used were similar in their results for the SNPs predicted by FASTSNP to have no effect, of SNPs with scores from low to high, there were three that received an F-SNP score below what is considered functionally significant. In silico programs can fail to identify functional SNPs, supporting a continuing role for empiric analysis of SNP function. Laboratory analysis is necessary to identify causal SNPs accurately, establish biological plausibility of the effect, and ultimately inform cancer prevention strategies.
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.