ArticleTranslational oncology2020
Candidate biomarker assessment for pharmacological response.
Article in Translational oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Using the information from our CellMiner (https://discover.nci.nih.gov/cellminer/) and CellMinerCDB (https://discover.nci.nih.gov/cellminercdb/) web-based applications, we identified 3978 molecular events with significant links to pharmacological response for genes that are either targets, biomarkers, or have established causal linkage to drugs. Molecular events included DNA copy number, methylation and mutation; and transcript; and whole or phospho-protein expression for the NCI-60 human cancer cell lines. While all forms of molecular data were informative in some (gene-drug) pairings, the type of significantly linked molecular events was found to vary widely by drug. Some forms of molecular data were found to have more frequent significant correlation than others. Leading were phosphoproteins as measured by antibody (31%), followed by transcript as measured by microarray (16%), and total protein levels as measured by mass spectrometry or antibody (14%). All other measurements ranged between 5 and 11%. Data reliability was underscored by concordant results when using differing drugs with the same targets, as well as different measurements of the same molecular parameter. The significance of correlations of the various molecular parameters to the pharmacological responses provides functional indication of those parameters that are biologically relevant for each gene-drug pairing, as well as comparisons between measurement types.
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.