ArticleBiomolecules2020
Exploring Alzheimer's Disease Molecular Variability via Calculation of Personalized Transcriptional Signatures.
Article in Biomolecules, 2020. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overcoming resistance to EGFR monotherapy in HNSCC by identification and inhibition of individualized cancer processes.Theranostics · 2022Article
- Omics Data and Their Integrative Analysis to Support Stratified Medicine in Neurodegenerative Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Explant Modeling of the Immune Environment of Head and Neck Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite huge investments and major efforts to develop remedies for Alzheimer's disease (AD) in the past decades, AD remains incurable. While evidence for molecular and phenotypic variability in AD have been accumulating, AD research still heavily relies on the search for AD-specific genetic/protein biomarkers that are expected to exhibit repetitive patterns throughout all patients. Thus, the classification of AD patients to different categories is expected to set the basis for the development of therapies that will be beneficial for subpopulations of patients. Here we explore the molecular heterogeneity among a large cohort of AD and non-demented brain samples, aiming to address the question whether AD-specific molecular biomarkers can progress our understanding of the disease and advance the development of anti-AD therapeutics. We studied 951 brain samples, obtained from up to 17 brain regions of 85 AD patients and 22 non-demented subjects. Utilizing an information-theoretic approach, we deciphered the brain sample-specific structures of altered transcriptional networks. Our in-depth analysis revealed that 7 subnetworks were repetitive in the 737 diseased and 214 non-demented brain samples. Each sample was characterized by a subset consisting of ~1-3 subnetworks out of 7, generating 52 distinct altered transcriptional signatures that characterized the 951 samples. We show that 30 different altered transcriptional signatures characterized solely AD samples and were not found in any of the non-demented samples. In contrast, the rest of the signatures characterized different subsets of sample types, demonstrating the high molecular variability and complexity of gene expression in AD. Importantly, different AD patients exhibiting similar expression levels of AD biomarkers harbored distinct altered transcriptional networks. Our results emphasize the need to expand the biomarker-based stratification to patient-specific transcriptional signature identification for improved AD diagnosis and for the development of subclass-specific future treatment.
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.