ArticleMolecular medicine reports2015
Analysis of the protein-protein interaction networks of differentially expressed genes in pulmonary embolism.
Article in Molecular medicine reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploratory multiomics analysis identifies WDR17 as a potential biomarker of tyrosine kinase inhibitor resistance in lung adenocarcinoma.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Integrin β Expression as a New Diagnostic Marker for Arteriovenous Thrombosis: A Single-Center Prospective Study.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2023Article
- Protective effect and mechanism insight of purified Antarctic kill phospholipids against mice ulcerative colitis combined with bioinformatics.Natural products and bioprospecting · 2023Article
- Gene Expression Profiling of Pulmonary Artery in a Rabbit Model of Pulmonary Thromboembolism.PloS one · 2016Article
- The origin and onset of acute venous thrombus.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to explore the function and interaction of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in pulmonary embolism (PE). The gene expression profile GSE13535, was downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. The DEGs 2 and 18 h post‑PE initiation were identified using the affy package in R software. The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways of the DEGs were analyzed using Database for Annotation Visualization and Integrated Discovery (DAVID) online analytical tools. In addition, protein‑protein interaction (PPI) networks of the DEGs were constructed using the Search Tool for the Retrieval of Interacting Genes/Proteins. The PPI network at 18 h was modularized using Clusterone, and a functional enrichment analysis of the DEGs in the top three modules was performed with DAVID. Overall, 80 and 346 DEGs were identified 2 and 18 h after PE initiation, respectively. The KEGG pathways, including chemokine signaling and toll‑like receptor signaling, were shown to be significantly enriched. The five highest degree nodes in the PPI networks at 2 or 18 h were screened. The module analysis of the PPI network at 18 h revealed 11 hub nodes. A Gene Ontology terms analysis demonstrated that the DEGs in the top three modules were associated with the inflammatory, defense and immune responses. The results of the present study suggest that the DEGs identified, including chemokine‑related genes TFPI2 and TNF, may be potential target genes for the treatment of PE. The chemokine signaling pathway, inflammatory response and immune response were explored, and it may be suggested that these pathways have important roles in PE.
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.