ArticlePloS one2015
Comparison of Genetic Variants in Cancer-Related Genes between Chinese Hui and Han Populations.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding Racial Disparities in Gastrointestinal Cancer Outcomes: Lack of Surgery Contributes to Lower Survival in African American Patients.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021Article
- Ethnic disparities in demographic, clinicopathologic and biological behaviours and prognosis of gastric cancer in northwest China.Cancer medicine · 2020Article
- A Novel Association between Lysyl Oxidase Gene Polymorphism and Intracranial Aneurysm in Koreans.Yonsei medical journal · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Chinese Hui population, as the second largest minority ethnic group in China, may have a different genetic background from Han people because of its unique demographic history. In this study, we aimed to identify genetic differences between Han and Hui Chinese from the Ningxia region of China by comparing eighteen single nucleotide polymorphisms in cancer-related genes.
methodsDNA samples were collected from 99 Hui and 145 Han people from the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region in China, and SNPs were detected using an improved multiplex ligase detection reaction method. Genotyping data from six 1000 Genomes Project population samples (99 Utah residents with northern and western European ancestry (CEU), 107 Toscani in Italy (TSI), 108 Yoruba in Ibadan (YRI), 61 of African ancestry in the southwestern US (ASW), 103 Han Chinese in Beijing (CHB), and 104 Japanese in Tokyo (JPT)) were also included in this study. Differences in the distribution of alleles among the populations were assessed using χ2 tests, and FST was used to measure the degree of population differentiation.
resultsWe found that the genetic diversity of many SNPs in cancer-related genes in the Hui Chinese in Ningxia was different from that in the Han Chinese in Ningxia. For example, the allele frequencies of four SNPs (rs13361707, rs2274223, rs465498, and rs753955) showed different genetic distributions (p<0.05) between Chinese Ningxia Han and Chinese Ningxia Hui. Five SNPs (rs730506, rs13361707, rs2274223, rs465498 and rs753955) had different FST values (FST>0.000) between the Hui and Han populations.
conclusionsThese results suggest that some SNPs associated with cancer-related genes vary among different Chinese ethnic groups. We suggest that population differences should be carefully considered in evaluating cancer risk and prognosis as well as the efficacy of cancer therapy.
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.