ArticleCell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.)2014
Multi-gene fluorescence in situ hybridization to detect cell cycle gene copy number aberrations in young breast cancer patients.
Article in Cell cycle (Georgetown, Tex.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Automated 3D scoring of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using a confocal whole slide imaging scanner.Applied microscopy · 2021Article
- Loss of FZO1 gene results in changes of cell dynamics in fission yeast.International journal of molecular medicine · 2020Article
- Article
- Article
- Progress in the clinical detection of heterogeneity in breast cancer.Cancer medicine · 2016Review
- CEP3 and CEP17 DNA probe potential in the genetic diagnosis and prognostic prediction of esophageal squamous cell cancer.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2016Article
- Epidermal growth factor receptor and AKT1 gene copy numbers by multi-gene fluorescence in situ hybridization impact on prognosis in breast cancer.Cancer science · 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
12 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breast cancer is a disease of cell cycle, and the dysfunction of cell cycle checkpoints plays a vital role in the occurrence and development of breast cancer. We employed multi-gene fluorescence in situ hybridization (M-FISH) to investigate gene copy number aberrations (CNAs) of 4 genes (Rb1, CHEK2, c-Myc, CCND1) that are involved in the regulation of cell cycle, in order to analyze the impact of gene aberrations on prognosis in the young breast cancer patients. Gene copy number aberrations of these 4 genes were more frequently observed in young breast cancer patients when compared with the older group. Further, these CNAs were more frequently seen in Luminal B type, Her2 overexpression, and tiple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) type in young breast cancer patients. The variations of CCND1, Rb1, and CHEK2 were significantly correlated with poor survival in the young breast cancer patient group, while the amplification of c-Myc was not obviously correlated with poor survival in young breast cancer patients. Thus, gene copy number aberrations (CNAs) of cell cycle-regulated genes can serve as an important tool for prognosis in young breast cancer patients.
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.