Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25593028›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2015

Skewed expression of the genes encoding epigenetic modifiers in high-risk uveal melanoma.

Naoimh Herlihy, Mehmet Dogrusöz, T Huibertus van Essen, J William Harbour, Pieter A van der Velden, Marja C J A van Eggermond, Geert W Haasnoot, Peter J van den Elsen, Martine J Jager

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. NSUN2-mediated RNA mEpigenetics · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. ALKBH5-mediated mAging · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Targeting Epigenetic Modifications in Uveal Melanoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Treatment of uveal melanoma: where are we now?Therapeutic advances in medical oncology · 2018
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Naoimh HerlihyDepartment of Immunohaematology and Blood Transfusion, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Mehmet DogrusözDepartment of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
T Huibertus van EssenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
J William HarbourBascom Palmer Eye Institute, Miami, Florida, United States.
Pieter A van der VeldenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marja C J A van EggermondDepartment of Immunohaematology and Blood Transfusion, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Geert W HaasnootDepartment of Immunohaematology and Blood Transfusion, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Peter J van den ElsenDepartment of Immunohaematology and Blood Transfusion, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martine J JagerDepartment of Ophthalmology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NL

Funding

MOLECULAR PREDICTIVE TESTING IN OCULAR MELANOMAR01CA125970 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI CORREA, ZELIA MARIA, HARBOUR, JAMES WILLIAM · 2006 to 2021
$4.9M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA125970
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMonosomy 3 (M3) or the presence of a specific RNA expression profile, known as class 2, is strongly associated with death from uveal melanoma (UM). Given the important role of epigenetic processes in cancer development and progression, we compared the transcriptional profiles of a selection of epigenetic regulators between primary UM with a good and a bad prognosis.

methodsTranscriptional levels of 59 epigenetic regulator genes were measured by quantitative PCR (qPCR) in 20 UM, 12 with monosomy of chromosome 3 (M3) and 8 with disomy of chromosome 3 (D3). Validation was performed in an independent cohort. Expression levels were compared to clinicopathological characteristics, including class type. Bisulfite sequencing was used to evaluate the role of DNA methylation in gene silencing.

resultsIn the first set of tumors, general downregulation of transcription of the genes encoding epigenetic regulatory enzymes was seen in association with M3. The 10 genes with the highest differential expression between M3 and D3 were selected and were analyzed in a second set of tumors. In the validation set, significantly lower levels of KAT2B (P = 0.008), HDAC11 (P = 0.009), KMT1C (P = 0.05), KDM4B (P = 0.003), KDM6B (P = 0.04), and BMI-1 (P = 0.001) transcripts were found in tumors with M3/class 2. Methylation of C-phosphate-G (CpG) residues was not observed on the putative regulatory regions of KAT2B, KDM4B, or KDM6B.

conclusionsExpression levels of a number of histone-modifying genes and polycomb family members are significantly lower in uveal melanoma with monosomy 3/class 2, supporting a general dysregulation of epigenetic modifiers in UM with a bad prognosis.

Indexed as

AdultAgedDisease ProgressionDNA MethylationDown-RegulationEpigenesis, GeneticFemaleGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticGene SilencingGenes, RegulatorHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedPrognosisTranscription, Geneticepigeneticsgene expressionmelanomaoncologyuvea

Identifiers

PMID25593028
PMCPMC5102441
OpenAlexW2010144136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.