ArticlePloS one2019
Identification of modules and functional analysis in CRC subtypes by integrated bioinformatics analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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.
- Research progress on NUSAP1 and its role in digestive system neoplasms.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Newly developed preclinical models reveal broad-spectrum CDK inhibitors as potent drugs for CRPC exhibiting primary resistance to enzalutamide.Cancer science · 2024Article
- Comprehensively analyzing the genetic alterations, and identifying key genes in ovarian cancer.Oncology research · 2023Article
- NUSAP1 promotes the metastasis of breast cancer cells via the AMPK/PPARγ signaling pathway.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Whole genome sequencing of metastatic colorectal cancer reveals prior treatment effects and specific metastasis features.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Investigation of colorectal cancer in accordance with consensus molecular subtype classification.Annals of gastroenterological surgery · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer is one of the top three causes of cancer-related mortality globally, but no predictive molecular biomarkers are currently available for identifying the disease stage of colorectal cancer patients. Common molecular patterns in the disease, beyond superficial manifestations, can be significant in determining treatment choices. In this study, we used microarray data from colorectal cancer and adjacent normal tissue from the GEO database. These data were categorized into four consensus molecular subtypes based on distinct gene expression signatures. Weighted gene-based protein-protein interaction network analysis was performed for each subtype. NUSAP1, CD44, and COL4A1 modules were found to be statistically significant and present among all the subtypes and displayed though similar but not identical functional enrichment results. Reference of the characteristics of the subtypes to functional modules is necessary since the latter can stay resistant to platform changes and technique noise when compared with other analyses. The CMS4-mesenchymal group, which currently has a poor prognosis, was examined in the study. It is composed mainly of genes involved in immune and stromal expression, with modules focused on ECM dysregulation and chemokine biological processes. Hub genes detection and its' mapping into the protein-protein interaction network can be indicative of possible targets against specific modules. This approach identified subtypes using enrichment-oriented analysis in functional modules. Proper annotation of functional analysis of modules from different subtypes of CRC might be directive for finding extra options for treatment targets and guiding clinical routines.
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.