ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2021
A multi-omics study on cutaneous and uveal melanoma.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
aimTo present the multi-omics landscape of cutaneous melanoma (CM) and uveal melanoma (UM) from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA).
methodsThe differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between CM and UM were found and integrated into a gene ontology enrichment analysis. Besides, the differentially expressed miRNAs were also identified. We also compared the methylation level of CM with UM and identified the differentially methylated regions to integrate with the DEGs to display the relationship between the gene expression and DNA methylation. The differentially expressed transcription factors (TFs) were identified.
resultsThough CM had more mutational burden than UM, they shared several similarities such as the same rankings in diverse variant types. Except GNAQ and GNA11, the other top 18 mutated genes of the combined group were mostly detected in CM instead of UM. On the transcriptomic level, 4610 DEGs were found and integrated into a gene ontology enrichment analysis. We also identified 485 differentially expressed miRNAs. The methylation analysis showed that UM had a significantly higher methylation level than CM. The integration of differentially methylated regions and DEGs demonstrated that most DEGs were downregulated in UM and the hypo- and hypermethylation presented no obvious difference within these DEGs. Finally, 116 hypermethylated TFs and 114 hypomethylated TFs were identified as differentially expressed TFs in CM when compared with UM.
conclusionThis multi-omics study on comparing CM with UM confirms that they differ in all analyzed levels. Of notice, the results also offer new insights with implications for elucidating certain unclear problems such as the distinct role of epithelial mesenchymal transition in two melanomas, the different metastatic routes of CM and UM and the liver tropism of metastatic UM.
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.