ArticleScientific reports2021
Identification of prognostic alternative splicing events in sarcoma.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global profiling of alternative splicing in non-small cell lung cancer reveals novel histological and population differences.Oncogene · 2025Article
- Clinical and Prognostic Implications of an Alternative Splicing-related Risk Model Based on TP53 Status in Breast Cancer.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2025Article
- Plasma membrane SK2 channel activity regulates migration and chemosensitivity of high-grade serous ovarian cancer cells.Molecular oncology · 2024Article
- Outer dynein arm docking complex subunit 2 polymorphism rs7893462 modulates hepatocellular carcinoma susceptibility and can serve as an overall survival biomarker for hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy: a cohort study with a long-term follow-up.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- A new molecular subclassification andFrontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Sarcoma is a rare malignancy with unfavorable prognoses. Accumulating evidence indicates that aberrant alternative splicing (AS) events are generally involved in cancer pathogenesis. The aim of this study was to identify the prognostic value of AS-related survival genes as potential biomarkers, and highlight the functional roles of AS events in sarcoma. RNA-sequencing and AS-event datasets were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) sarcoma cohort and TCGA SpliceSeq, respectively. Survival-related AS events were further assessed using a univariate analysis. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was also performed to establish a survival-gene signature to predict patient survival, and the area-under-the-curve method was used to evaluate prognostic reliability. KOBAS 3.0 and Cytoscape were used to functionally annotate AS-related genes and to assess their network interactions. We detected 9674 AS events in 40,184 genes from 236 sarcoma samples, and the 15 most significant genes were then used to construct a survival regression model. We further validated the involvement of ten potential survival-related genes (TUBB3, TRIM69, ZNFX1, VAV1, KCNN2, VGLL3, AK7, ARMC4, LRRC1, and CRIP1) in the occurrence and development of sarcoma. Multivariate survival model analyses were also performed, and validated that a model using these ten genes provided good classifications for predicting patient outcomes. The present study has increased our understanding of AS events in sarcoma, and the gene-based model using AS-related events may serve as a potential predictor to determine the survival of sarcoma patients.
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.