ArticleBMC medical genomics2021
Conditional transcriptional relationships may serve as cancer prognostic markers.
Article in BMC medical genomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- MATTE: a pipeline of transcriptome module alignment for anti-noise phenotype-gene-related analysis.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
- Gene Expression Pattern ofCancers · 2023Article
- Monocarboxylate Transporters Are Involved in Extracellular Matrix Remodelling in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Cancers · 2022Article
- The International Conference on Intelligent Biology and Medicine (ICIBM) 2020: Data-driven analytics in biomedical genomics.BMC medical genomics · 2020Article
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhile most differential coexpression (DC) methods are bound to quantify a single correlation value for a gene pair across multiple samples, a newly devised approach under the name Correlation by Individual Level Product (CILP) revolutionarily projects the summary correlation value to individual product correlation values for separate samples. CILP greatly widened DC analysis opportunities by allowing integration of non-compromised statistical methods.
methodsHere, we performed a study to verify our hypothesis that conditional relationships, i.e., gene pairs of remarkable differential coexpression, may be sought as quantitative prognostic markers for human cancers. Alongside the seeking of prognostic gene links in a pan-cancer setting, we also examined whether a trend of global expression correlation loss appeared in a wide panel of cancer types and revisited the controversial subject of mutual relationship between the DE approach and the DC approach.
resultsBy integrating CILP with classical univariate survival analysis, we identified up to 244 conditional gene links as potential prognostic markers in five cancer types. In particular, five prognostic gene links for kidney renal papillary cell carcinoma tended to condense around cancer gene ESPL1, and the transcriptional synchrony between ESPL1 and PTTG1 tended to be elevated in patients of adverse prognosis. In addition, we extended the observation of global trend of correlation loss in more than ten cancer types and empirically proved DC analysis results were independent of gene differential expression in five cancer types.
conclusionsCombining the power of CILP and the classical survival analysis, we successfully fetched conditional transcriptional relationships that conferred prognosis power for five cancer types. Despite a general trend of global correlation loss in tumor transcriptomes, most of these prognosis conditional links demonstrated stronger expression correlation in tumors, and their stronger coexpression was associated with poor survival.
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.