ArticleInternational ophthalmology2021
Identification of prognostic alternative splicing signatures in uveal melanoma.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrated analysis of genomic and transcriptomic data for the discovery of splice-associated variants in cancer.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of a Novel Metabolic Signature-Based Prognostic Model for Uveal Melanoma.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAlternative splicing (AS) events were reportedly associated with the development of multiple cancers. The study was designed to provide a comprehensive analysis of AS events and explore their potential prognostic value in uveal melanoma (UM).
methodsThe prognostic AS events, identified based on the data of 80 UM patients obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas, were further screened and analyzed for construction of prognostic signatures by using LASSO regression and multivariate Cox model. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to evaluate the prognostic value. The AS events-related functional pathways were explored by gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). The difference between two subgroups in terms of treatment options was investigated. The regulatory network between prognostic AS events and splicing factors (SFs) was then constructed.
resultsA total of 1014 AS events were identified as prognostic AS events. Five prognostic AS events were involved in the construction of prognostic signatures, including AKAP2/87175/AP, RGMA/32575/ES, DNASE1L1/90581/ES, BIN1/55198/ES and ERCC2/50430/AT. UM patients were then divided into two subgroups. Prognostic AS signatures had an excellent performance in predicting the survival of UM patients, with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.962. GSEA results suggested several splicing-associated mechanisms, including cellular metabolic process and apoptosis. Low-risk subgroup could be more sensitive to drugs. A higher expression of immune checkpoint genes was observed in high-risk group than in low-risk group. SFs-AS regulatory network also revealed significant association between AS events and SFs.
conclusionsAberrant AS events in UM patients might serve as prognostic predictors.
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.