ArticleMolecular medicine reports2017
Bioinformatic analysis of the effects and mechanisms of decitabine and cytarabine on acute myeloid leukemia.
Article in Molecular medicine reports, 2017. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Decitabine combined with RDHAP regimen in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B cell lymphoma.Cancer medicine · 2023Trial
- Epigenetically upregulating TROP2 and SLFN11 enhances therapeutic efficacy of TROP2 antibody drug conjugate sacitizumab govitecan.NPJ breast cancer · 2023Article
- Expression and prognostic potential of GPX1 in human cancers based on data mining.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is a frequently occurring malignant disease of the blood and may result from a variety of genetic disorders. The present study aimed to identify the underlying mechanisms associated with the therapeutic effects of decitabine and cytarabine on AML, using microarray analysis. The microarray datasets GSE40442 and GSE40870 were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus database. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and differentially methylated sites were identified in AML cells treated with decitabine compared with those treated with cytarabine via the Linear Models for Microarray Data package, following data pre‑processing. Gene Ontology (GO) analysis of DEGs was performed using the Database for Annotation, Visualization and Integrated Analysis Discovery. Genes corresponding to the differentially methylated sites were obtained using the annotation package of the methylation microarray platform. The overlapping genes were identified, which exhibited the opposite variation trend between gene expression and DNA methylation. Important transcription factor (TF)‑gene pairs were screened out, and a regulated network subsequently constructed. A total of 190 DEGs and 540 differentially methylated sites were identified in AML cells treated with decitabine compared with those treated with cytarabine. A total of 36 GO terms of DEGs were enriched, including nucleosomes, protein‑DNA complexes and the nucleosome assembly. The 540 differentially methylated sites were located on 240 genes, including the acid‑repeat containing protein (ACRC) gene that was additionally differentially expressed. In addition, 60 TF pairs and overlapped methylated sites, and 140 TF‑pairs and DEGs were screened out. The regulated network included 68 nodes and 140 TF‑gene pairs. The present study identified various genes including ACRC and proliferating cell nuclear antigen, in addition to various TFs, including TATA‑box binding protein associated factor 1 and CCCTC‑binding factor, which may be potential therapeutic targets of AML.
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.