Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24497971›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Investigating the different mechanisms of genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens by a gene set analysis.

Won Jun Lee, Sang Cheol Kim, Seul Ji Lee, Jeongmi Lee, Jeong Hill Park, Kyung-Sang Yu, Johan Lim, Sung Won Kwon

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Won Jun LeeCollege of Pharmacy and Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sang Cheol KimSamsung Genome Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seul Ji LeeCollege of Pharmacy and Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jeongmi LeeSchool of Pharmacy, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, Republic of Korea.
Jeong Hill ParkCollege of Pharmacy and Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Kyung-Sang YuSeoul National University College of Medicine and Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Johan LimDepartment of Statistics, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sung Won KwonCollege of Pharmacy and Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Seoul National University · KRSamsung Medical Center · KRSeoul National University Hospital · KRSungkyunkwan University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Based on the process of carcinogenesis, carcinogens are classified as either genotoxic or non-genotoxic. In contrast to non-genotoxic carcinogens, many genotoxic carcinogens have been reported to cause tumor in carcinogenic bioassays in animals. Thus evaluating the genotoxicity potential of chemicals is important to discriminate genotoxic from non-genotoxic carcinogens for health care and pharmaceutical industry safety. Additionally, investigating the difference between the mechanisms of genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens could provide the foundation for a mechanism-based classification for unknown compounds. In this study, we investigated the gene expression of HepG2 cells treated with genotoxic or non-genotoxic carcinogens and compared their mechanisms of action. To enhance our understanding of the differences in the mechanisms of genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens, we implemented a gene set analysis using 12 compounds for the training set (12, 24, 48 h) and validated significant gene sets using 22 compounds for the test set (24, 48 h). For a direct biological translation, we conducted a gene set analysis using Globaltest and selected significant gene sets. To validate the results, training and test compounds were predicted by the significant gene sets using a prediction analysis for microarrays (PAM). Finally, we obtained 6 gene sets, including sets enriched for genes involved in the adherens junction, bladder cancer, p53 signaling pathway, pathways in cancer, peroxisome and RNA degradation. Among the 6 gene sets, the bladder cancer and p53 signaling pathway sets were significant at 12, 24 and 48 h. We also found that the DDB2, RRM2B and GADD45A, genes related to the repair and damage prevention of DNA, were consistently up-regulated for genotoxic carcinogens. Our results suggest that a gene set analysis could provide a robust tool in the investigation of the different mechanisms of genotoxic and non-genotoxic carcinogens and construct a more detailed understanding of the perturbation of significant pathways.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingCarcinogensCluster AnalysisDNA DamageDNA RepairGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHep G2 CellsHumansMutagenicity TestsNeoplasmsOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPrincipal Component AnalysisUrinary Bladder NeoplasmsCarcinogens

Identifiers

PMID24497971
PMCPMC3908933
OpenAlexW1973920676

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.