ArticleBMC bioinformatics2019
Identifying cancer prognostic modules by module network analysis.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- GETdb: A comprehensive database for genetic and evolutionary features of drug targets.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- Non-Coding RNAs Extended Omnigenic Module of Cancers.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Global transcriptomic network analysis of the crosstalk between microbiota and cancer-related cells in the oral-gut-lung axis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- Identification of disease-related genes and construction of a gene co-expression database in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Identification of the Transcriptional Regulatory Role of RUNX2 by Network Analysis in Lung Cancer Cells.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Exploiting protein family and protein network data to identify novel drug targets for bladder cancer.Oncotarget · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Joint Transcriptomic Analysis of Lung Cancer and Other Lung Diseases.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe identification of prognostic genes that can distinguish the prognostic risks of cancer patients remains a significant challenge. Previous works have proven that functional gene sets were more reliable for this task than the gene signature. However, few works have considered the cross-talk among functional gene sets, which may result in neglecting important prognostic gene sets for cancer.
resultsHere, we proposed a new method that considers both the interactions among modules and the prognostic correlation of the modules to identify prognostic modules in cancers. First, dense sub-networks in the gene co-expression network of cancer patients were detected. Second, cross-talk between every two modules was identified by a permutation test, thus generating the module network. Third, the prognostic correlation of each module was evaluated by the resampling method. Then, the GeneRank algorithm, which takes the module network and the prognostic correlations of all the modules as input, was applied to prioritize the prognostic modules. Finally, the selected modules were validated by survival analysis in various data sets. Our method was applied in three kinds of cancers, and the results show that our method succeeded in identifying prognostic modules in all the three cancers. In addition, our method outperformed state-of-the-art methods. Furthermore, the selected modules were significantly enriched with known cancer-related genes and drug targets of cancer, which may indicate that the genes involved in the modules may be drug targets for therapy.
conclusionsWe proposed a useful method to identify key modules in cancer prognosis and our prognostic genes may be good candidates for drug targets.
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.