ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2022
Better Agreement of Human Transcriptomic and Proteomic Cancer Expression Data at the Molecular Pathway Activation Level.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- NetActivity enhances transcriptional signals by combining gene expression into robust gene set activity scores through interpretable autoencoders.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Lapatinib-induced enhancement of mitochondrial respiration in HER2-positive SK-BR-3 cells: mechanism revealed by analysis of proteomic but not transcriptomic data.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024Article
- Algorithmically Reconstructed Molecular Pathways as the New Generation of Prognostic Molecular Biomarkers in Human Solid Cancers.Proteomes · 2023Article
- Article
- Next-Generation Grade and Survival Expression Biomarkers of Human Gliomas Based on Algorithmically Reconstructed Molecular Pathways.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Previously, we have shown that the aggregation of RNA-level gene expression profiles into quantitative molecular pathway activation metrics results in lesser batch effects and better agreement between different experimental platforms. Here, we investigate whether pathway level of data analysis provides any advantage when comparing transcriptomic and proteomic data. We compare the paired proteomic and transcriptomic gene expression and pathway activation profiles obtained for the same human cancer biosamples in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and the NCI Clinical Proteomic Tumor Analysis Consortium (CPTAC) projects, for a total of 755 samples of glioblastoma, breast, liver, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, and uterine cancers. In a CPTAC assay, expression levels of 15,112 protein-coding genes were profiled using the Thermo QE series of mass spectrometers. In TCGA, RNA expression levels of the same genes were obtained using the Illumina HiSeq 4000 engine for the same biosamples. At the gene level, absolute gene expression values are compared, whereas pathway-grade comparisons are made between the pathway activation levels (PALs) calculated using average sample-normalized transcriptomic and proteomic profiles. We observed remarkably different average correlations between the primary RNA- and protein expression data for different cancer types: Spearman Rho between 0.017 (p = 1.7 × 10−13) and 0.27 (p < 2.2 × 10−16). However, at the pathway level we detected overall statistically significantly higher correlations: averaged Rho between 0.022 (p < 2.2 × 10−16) and 0.56 (p < 2.2 × 10−16). Thus, we conclude that data analysis at the PAL-level yields results of a greater similarity when comparing high-throughput RNA and protein expression profiles.
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.