ArticleEuropean journal of medical research2015
Clinical implications of the quantitative detection of ID4 gene methylation in myelodysplastic syndrome.
Article in European journal of medical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Critical Role of Inhibitor of Differentiation 4 in Breast Cancer: From Mammary Gland Development to Tumor Progression.Cancer medicine · 2025Review
- The role of Src homology region 2 domain-containing phosphatase-1 hypermethylation in the classification of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes and its association with signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 phosphorylation in skm-1 cells.The Journal of international medical research · 2021Article
- Epigenetic dysregulation of ID4 predicts disease progression and treatment outcome in myeloid malignancies.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2017Article
- The Id-protein family in developmental and cancer-associated pathways.Cell communication and signaling : CCS · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMyelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) eventually transforms into acute leukemia (AL) in about 30% of patients. Hypermethylation of the inhibitor of DNA binding 4 (ID4) gene may play an important role in the initiation and development of MDS and AL. The aim of this study was to quantitatively assess ID4 gene methylation in MDS and to establish if it could be an effective method of evaluating MDS disease progression.
methodsWe examined 142 bone marrow samples from MDS patients, healthy donors and MDS-AL patients using bisulfite sequencing PCR and quantitative real-time methylation-specific PCR. The ID4 methylation rates and levels were assessed.
resultsID4 methylation occurred in 27 patients (27/100). ID4 gene methylation was more frequent and at higher levels in patients with advanced disease stages and in high-risk subgroups according to WHO (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively) and International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) (P = 0.002, P = 0.007, respectively) classifications. ID4 methylation levels changed during disease progression. Both methylation rates and methylation levels were significantly different between healthy donor, MDS patients and patients with MDS-AL (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively). Multivariate analysis indicated that the level of ID4 methylation was an independent factor influencing overall survival. Patients with MDS showed decreased survival time with increased ID4 methylation levels (P = 0.011, hazard ratio (HR) = 2.371). Patients with ID4 methylation had shorter survival time than those without ID4 methylation (P = 0.008).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that ID4 gene methylation might be a new biomarker for MDS monitoring and the detection of minimal residual disease.
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.