ArticlePloS one2016
Dissecting the Origin of Breast Cancer Subtype Stem Cell and the Potential Mechanism of Malignant Transformation.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- A cell-based model approach to radiation-induced breast cancer development.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Fetal Alcohol Exposure Alters Mammary Epithelial Cell Subpopulations and Promotes Tumorigenesis.Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research · 2020Article
- Concise Reviews: Cancer Stem Cell Targeted Therapies: Toward Clinical Success.Stem cells translational medicine · 2019Review
- Notch and Wnt Dysregulation and Its Relevance for Breast Cancer and Tumor Initiation.Biomedicines · 2018Review
- Breast cancer and Flammer syndrome: any symptoms in common for prediction, prevention and personalised medical approach?The EPMA journal · 2017Article
- Feeling cold and other underestimated symptoms in breast cancer: anecdotes or individual profiles for advanced patient stratification?The EPMA journal · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer is the most common incident form of cancer in women including different subtypes. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) have been confirmed to exist in breast cancer. But the research on the origin of breast cancer subtype stem cells (BCSSCs) is still inadequate.
methodsWe identified the putative origin cells of BCSSCs through comparing gene signatures between BCSSCs and normal mammary cells from multiple perspectives: common signature, expression consistency, functional similarity and shortest path length. First, the potential origin cells were ranked according to these measures separately. Then Q statistic was employed to combine all rank lists into a unique list for each subtype, to prioritize the origin cells for each BCSSC. Next, we identified origin-related gene modules through integrating functional interaction network with differentially expressed genes. Finally, transcription factors of significant gene modules were predicted by MatchTM.
resultsThe results showed that Luminal A CSC was most relevant to luminal progenitor cell or mature luminal cell; luminal B and HER2 CSC were most relevant to bipotent-enriched progenitor cell; basal-like CSC was most relevant to bipotent-enriched progenitor cell or mature luminal cell. Network modules analysis revealed genes related to mitochondrial respiratory chain (MRC) were significantly dysregulated during the origin of luminal B CSC. In addition, SOX10 emerged as a key regulator of MRC.
conclusionsOur study supports substantive evidence for the possible origin of four kinds of BCSSCs. Dysfunction of MRC may contribute to the origin of luminal B CSC. These findings may have important implications to treat and prevent breast cancer.
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.