ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2020
Analysis of differentially expressed genes in bacterial and fungal keratitis.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ocular surface immune transcriptome and tear cytokines in corneal infection patients.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2024Article
- An automated DNA computing platform for rapid etiological diagnostics.Science advances · 2022Article
- Ocular Surface Infection Mediated Molecular Stress Responses: A Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Uncovering a Hub Signaling Pathway of Antimicrobial-Antifungal-Anticancer Peptides' Axis on Short Cationic Peptides via Network Pharmacology Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Update on the management of fungal keratitis.International ophthalmology · 2021Review
- Infectious Keratitis: An Update on Role of Epigenetics.Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Erratum: Analysis of differentially expressed genes in bacterial and fungal keratitis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
- Commentary: Analysis of differentially expressed genes in bacterial and fungal keratitis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study was aimed at identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in bacterial and fungal keratitis. The candidate genes can be selected and quantified to distinguish between causative agents of infectious keratitis to improve therapeutic outcomes. Methods: The expression profile of bacterial or fungal infection, and normal corneal tissues were downloaded from the Gene Expression Omnibus. The limma package in R was used to screen DEGs in bacterial and fungal keratitis. The Co-Express tool was used to calculate correlation coefficients of co-expressed genes. The "Advanced network merge" function of Cytoscape tool was applied to obtain a fusional co-expression network based on bacterial and fungal keratitis DEGs. Finally, functional enrichment analysis by DAVID software and KEGG analysis by KOBAS of DEGs in fusion network were performed. Results: In total, 451 DEGs in bacterial keratitis and 353 DEGs in fungal keratitis were screened, among which 148 DEGs were found only in bacterial keratitis and 50 DEGs only in fungal keratitis. Besides, 117 co-expressed gene pairs were identified among bacterial keratitis DEGs and 87 pairs among fungal keratitis DEGs. In total, nine biological pathways and seven KEGG pathways were screened by analyzing DEGs in the fusional co-expression network. Conclusion: TLR4 is the representative DEG specific to bacterial keratitis, and SOD2 is the representative DEG specific to fungal keratitis, both of which are promising candidate genes to distinguish between bacterial and fungal keratitis.
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.