Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26304457›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2015

Investigation of VOCs associated with different characteristics of breast cancer cells.

Luca Lavra, Alexandro Catini, Alessandra Ulivieri, Rosamaria Capuano, Leila Baghernajad Salehi, Salvatore Sciacchitano, Armando Bartolazzi, Sara Nardis, Roberto Paolesse, Eugenio Martinelli and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Exhaled Breath Analysis in Diagnosis of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Volatilomes of human infection.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Luca LavraLabotatory of Biomedical Research "Fondazione Niccolò Cusano per la Ricerca Medico-Scientifica", Niccolò Cusano University, Rome, Italy.
Alexandro CatiniDepartment of Electronic Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via del Politecnico 1, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Alessandra UlivieriLabotatory of Biomedical Research "Fondazione Niccolò Cusano per la Ricerca Medico-Scientifica", Niccolò Cusano University, Rome, Italy.
Rosamaria CapuanoDepartment of Electronic Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via del Politecnico 1, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Leila Baghernajad SalehiLabotatory of Biomedical Research "Fondazione Niccolò Cusano per la Ricerca Medico-Scientifica", Niccolò Cusano University, Rome, Italy.
Salvatore SciacchitanoLabotatory of Biomedical Research "Fondazione Niccolò Cusano per la Ricerca Medico-Scientifica", Niccolò Cusano University, Rome, Italy.
Armando BartolazziDepartment of Pathology, Universitary Hospital Sant'Andrea, Rome, Italy.
Sara NardisDepartment of Chemical science and technology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via di Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Roberto PaolesseDepartment of Chemical science and technology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via di Tor Vergata, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Eugenio MartinelliDepartment of Electronic Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via del Politecnico 1, 00133 Rome, Italy.
Corrado Di NataleDepartment of Electronic Engineering, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Via del Politecnico 1, 00133 Rome, Italy.
University of Rome Tor Vergata · ITUniversity Niccolò Cusano · ITAzienda Ospedaliera Sant'Andrea · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The efficacy of breath volatile organic compounds (VOCs) analysis for the screening of patients bearing breast cancer lesions has been demonstrated by using gas chromatography and artificial olfactory systems. On the other hand, in-vitro studies suggest that VOCs detection could also give important indications regarding molecular and tumorigenic characteristics of tumor cells. Aim of this study was to analyze VOCs in the headspace of breast cancer cell lines in order to ascertain the potentiality of VOCs signatures in giving information about these cells and set-up a new sensor system able to detect breast tumor-associated VOCs. We identified by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry analysis a VOCs signature that discriminates breast cancer cells for: i) transformed condition; ii) cell doubling time (CDT); iii) Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors (ER, PgR) expression, and HER2 overexpression. Moreover, the signals obtained from a temperature modulated metal oxide semiconductor gas sensor can be classified in order to recognize VOCs signatures associated with breast cancer cells, CDT and ER expression. Our results demonstrate that VOCs analysis could give clinically relevant information about proliferative and molecular features of breast cancer cells and pose the basis for the optimization of a low-cost diagnostic device to be used for tumors characterization.

Indexed as

Electronic NoseBiomarkersBreast NeoplasmsCell Line, TumorGas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometryHumansMCF-7 CellsOdorantsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityVolatile Organic CompoundsBiomarkersVolatile Organic Compounds

Identifiers

PMID26304457
PMCPMC4548242
OpenAlexW1168289385

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.