Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33576824›Full record

ArticleMolecular human reproduction2021

Guidelines for biomarker discovery in endometrium: correcting for menstrual cycle bias reveals new genes associated with uterine disorders.

Almudena Devesa-Peiro, Patricia Sebastian-Leon, Antonio Pellicer, Patricia Diaz-Gimeno

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular human reproduction, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. EndoTime: non-categorical timing estimates for luteal endometrium.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2022
    Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Almudena Devesa-PeiroDepartment of Genomic & Systems Reproductive Medicine, IVI-RMA IVI Foundation, Valencia, Spain-Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Valencia 46026, Spain.
Patricia Sebastian-LeonDepartment of Genomic & Systems Reproductive Medicine, IVI-RMA IVI Foundation, Valencia, Spain-Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Valencia 46026, Spain.
Antonio PellicerDepartment of Genomic & Systems Reproductive Medicine, IVI-RMA IVI Foundation, Valencia, Spain-Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Valencia 46026, Spain.
Patricia Diaz-GimenoDepartment of Genomic & Systems Reproductive Medicine, IVI-RMA IVI Foundation, Valencia, Spain-Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Valencia 46026, Spain.
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe · ESUniversitat de València · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcriptomic approaches are increasingly used in reproductive medicine to identify candidate endometrial biomarkers. However, it is known that endometrial progression in the molecular biology of the menstrual cycle is a main factor that could affect the discovery of disorder-related genes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to systematically review current practices for considering the menstrual cycle effect and to demonstrate its bias in the identification of potential biomarkers. From the 35 studies meeting the criteria, 31.43% did not register the menstrual cycle phase. We analysed the menstrual cycle effect in 11 papers (including 12 studies) from Gene Expression Omnibus: three evaluating endometriosis, two evaluating recurrent implantation failure, one evaluating recurrent pregnancy loss, one evaluating uterine fibroids and five control studies, which collected endometrial samples throughout menstrual cycle. An average of 44.2% more genes were identified after removing menstrual cycle bias using linear models. This effect was observed even if studies were balanced in the proportion of samples collected at different endometrial stages or only in the mid-secretory phase. Our bias correction method increased the statistical power by retrieving more candidate genes than per-phase independent analyses. Thanks to this practice, we discovered 544 novel candidate genes for eutopic endometriosis, 158 genes for ectopic ovarian endometriosis and 27 genes for recurrent implantation failure. In conclusion, we demonstrate that menstrual cycle progression masks molecular biomarkers, provides new guidelines to unmask them and proposes a new classification that distinguishes between biomarkers of disorder or/and menstrual cycle progression.

Indexed as

EndometriosisUterine DiseasesEndometriumFemaleHumansMenstrual CycleTranscriptomeconfounding variabledifferential expressionendometrial pathologiesendometriosisgene expressionmenstrual cycle progressionrecurrent implantation failurerecurrent pregnancy losstranscriptomic analysisuterine fibroids

Identifiers

PMID33576824
PMCPMC8063681
OpenAlexW3128186749

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.