ArticlePloS one2018
A combined approach with gene-wise normalization improves the analysis of RNA-seq data in human breast cancer subtypes.
Article in PloS one, 2018. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- BrcaDx: precise identification of breast cancer from expression data using a minimal set of features.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Quantitative Assessment of PALB2 and BRIP1 Genes Expression in the Breast Cancer Cell Line under the Influence of Tamoxifen.Galen medical journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Correlation between targeted RNAseq signature of breast cancer CTCs and onset of bone-only metastases.British journal of cancer · 2022Article
- Single cell RNA sequencing for breast cancer: present and future.Cell death discovery · 2021Review
- Choice of library size normalization and statistical methods for differential gene expression analysis in balanced two-group comparisons for RNA-seq studies.BMC genomics · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Breast cancer (BC) is increasing in incidence and resistance to treatment worldwide. The challenges in limited therapeutic options and poor survival outcomes in BC subtypes persist because of its molecular heterogeneity and resistance to standard endocrine therapy. Recently, high throughput RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) has been used to identify biomarkers of disease progression and signaling pathways that could be amenable to specific therapies according to the BC subtype. However, there is no single generally accepted pipeline for the analysis of RNA-seq data in biomarker discovery due, in part, to the needs of simultaneously satisfying constraints of sensitivity and specificity. We proposed a combined approach using gene-wise normalization, UQ-pgQ2, followed by a Wald test from DESeq2. Our approach improved the analysis based on within-group comparisons in terms of the specificity when applied to publicly available RNA-seq BC datasets. In terms of identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs), we combined an optimized log2 fold change cutoff with a nominal false discovery rate of 0.05 to further minimize false positives. Using this method in the analysis of two GEO BC datasets, we identified 797 DEGs uniquely expressed in triple negative BC (TNBC) and significantly associated with T cell and immune-related signaling, contributing to the immunotherapeutic efficacy in TNBC patients. In contrast, we identified 1403 DEGs uniquely expressed in estrogen positive and HER2 negative BC (ER+HER2-BC) and significantly associated with eicosanoid, notching and FAK signaling while a common set of genes was associated with cellular growth and proliferation. Thus, our approach to control for false positives identified two distinct gene expression profiles associated with these two subtypes of BC which are distinguishable by their molecular and functional attributes.
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.