Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26462151›Full record

ArticleOncotarget2015

Heterogeneity revealed by integrated genomic analysis uncovers a molecular switch in malignant uveal melanoma.

Mark J de Lange, Sake I van Pelt, Mieke Versluis, Ekaterina S Jordanova, Wilma G M Kroes, Claudia Ruivenkamp, Sjoerd H van der Burg, Grégorius P M Luyten, Thorbald van Hall, Martine J Jager and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncotarget, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  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 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark J de LangeDepartment of Ophthalmology, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sake I van PeltDepartment of Ophthalmology, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Mieke VersluisDepartment of Ophthalmology, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Ekaterina S JordanovaDepartment of Pathology, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Wilma G M KroesDepartment of Clinical Genetics Laboratory for Diagnostic Genome Analysis (LDGA), LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Claudia RuivenkampDepartment of Clinical Genetics Laboratory for Diagnostic Genome Analysis (LDGA), LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sjoerd H van der BurgDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Grégorius P M LuytenDepartment of Ophthalmology, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Thorbald van HallDepartment of Clinical Oncology, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Martine J JagerDepartment of Ophthalmology, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Pieter A van der VeldenDepartment of Ophthalmology, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene expression profiles as well as genomic imbalances are correlated with disease progression in uveal melanoma (UM). We integrated expression and genomic profiles to obtain insight into the oncogenic mechanisms in development and progression of UM. We used tumor tissue from 64 enucleated eyes of UM patients for profiling. Mutations and genomic imbalances were quantified with digital PCR to study tumor heterogeneity and molecular pathogenesis. Gene expression analysis divided the UM panel into three classes. Class I presented tumors with a good prognosis and a distinct genomic make up that is characterized by 6p gain. The UM with a bad prognosis were subdivided into class IIa and class IIb. These classes presented similar survival risks but could be distinguished by tumor heterogeneity. Class IIa presented homogeneous tumors while class IIb tumors, on average, contained 30% of non-mutant cells. Tumor heterogeneity coincided with expression of a set of immune genes revealing an extensive immune infiltrate in class IIb tumors. Molecularly, class IIa and IIb presented the same genomic configuration and could only be distinguished by 8q copy number. Moreover, UM establish in the void of the immune privileged eye indicating that in IIb tumors the infiltrate is attracted by the UM. Combined our data show that chromosome 8q contains the locus that causes the immune phentotype of UM. UM thereby provides an unique opportunity to study immune attraction by tumors.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiomarkers, TumorDisease ProgressionDNA Copy Number VariationsFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGenomicsGTP-Binding Protein alpha SubunitsHumansMaleMelanomaMiddle AgedBiomarkers, TumorGNA11 protein, humanGTP-Binding Protein alpha Subunitsdigital PCRimmune profilemolecular etiologytumor heterogeneityuveal melanoma

Identifiers

PMID26462151
PMCPMC4741968
OpenAlexW2256293220

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.