Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32251301›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

RNA-Seq transcriptome profiling in three liver regeneration models in rats: comparative analysis of partial hepatectomy, ALLPS, and PVL.

Dilek Colak, Olfat Al-Harazi, Osama M Mustafa, Fanwei Meng, Abdullah M Assiri, Dipok K Dhar, Dieter C Broering

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. CD177Gut · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Genetic and Cellular Contributions to Liver Regeneration.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology · 2021
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. The Function of KDEL Receptors as UPR Genes in Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Dilek ColakBiostatistics, Epidemiology, and Scientific Computing Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. dkcolak@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6485-8768
Olfat Al-HaraziBiostatistics, Epidemiology, and Scientific Computing Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Osama M MustafaBiostatistics, Epidemiology, and Scientific Computing Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Fanwei MengDepartment of Surgery and Organ Transplantation Center, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah M AssiriComparative Medicine Department, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2753-5238
Dipok K DharDepartment of Surgery and Organ Transplantation Center, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. ddhar20@kfshrc.edu.sa.
Dieter C BroeringDepartment of Surgery and Organ Transplantation Center, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Centre · SAAlfaisal University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The liver is a unique organ that has a phenomenal capacity to regenerate after injury. Different surgical procedures, including partial hepatectomy (PH), intraoperative portal vein ligation (PVL), and associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy (ALPPS) show clinically distinct recovery patterns and regeneration. The observable clinical differences likely mirror some underlying variations in the patterns of gene activation and regeneration pathways. In this study, we provided a comprehensive comparative transcriptomic analysis of gene regulation in regenerating rat livers temporally spaced at 24 h and 96 h after PH, PVL, and ALPPS. The time-dependent factors appear to be the most important determinant of post-injury alterations of gene expression in liver regeneration. Gene expression profile after ALPPS showed more similar expression pattern to the PH than the PVL at the early phase of the regeneration. Early transcriptomic changes and predicted upstream regulators that were found in all three procedures included cell cycle associated genes (E2F1, CCND1, FOXM1, TP53, and RB1), transcription factors (Myc, E2F1, TBX2, FOXM1), DNA replication regulators (CDKN1A, EZH2, RRM2), G1/S-transition regulators (CCNB1, CCND1, RABL6), cytokines and growth factors (CSF2, IL-6, TNF, HGF, VEGF, and EGF), ATM and p53 signaling pathways. The functional pathway, upstream, and network analyses revealed both unique and overlapping molecular mechanisms and pathways for each surgical procedure. Identification of molecular signatures and regenerative signaling pathways for each surgical procedure further our understanding of key regulators of liver regeneration as well as patient populations that are likely to benefit from each procedure.

Indexed as

Gene Expression ProfilingGene Expression RegulationTranscriptomeAnimalsCell CycleDNA RepairDNA ReplicationGene OntologyHepatectomyHepatocytesLigationLiver RegenerationMaleModels, BiologicalPortal VeinPostoperative Period

Identifiers

PMID32251301
PMCPMC7089998
OpenAlexW3012870529

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.