ArticleCancers2022
Bottom-Up Approach to the Discovery of Clinically Relevant Biomarker Genes: The Case of Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional approaches to genome-wide marker discovery often follow a common top-down strategy, where a large scale 'omics' investigation is followed by the analysis of functional pathways involved, to narrow down the list of identified putative biomarkers, and to deconvolute gene expression networks, or to obtain an insight into genetic alterations observed in cancer. We set out to investigate whether a reverse approach would allow full or partial reconstruction of the transcriptional programs and biological pathways specific to a given cancer and whether the full or substantially expanded list of putative markers could thus be identified by starting with the partial knowledge of a few disease-specific markers. To this end, we used 10 well-documented differentially expressed markers of colorectal cancer (CRC), analyzed their transcription factor networks and biological pathways, and predicted the existence of 193 new putative markers. Incredibly, the use of a validation marker set of 10 other completely different known CRC markers and the same procedure resulted in a very similar set of 143 predicted markers. Of these, 138 were identical to those found using the training set, confirming our main hypothesis that a much-expanded set of disease markers can be predicted by starting with just a small subset of validated markers. Further to this, we validated the expression of 42 out of 138 top-ranked predicted markers experimentally using qPCR in surgically removed CRC tissues. We showed that 41 out of 42 mRNAs tested have significantly altered levels of mRNA expression in surgically excised CRC tissues. Of the markers tested, 36 have been reported to be associated with aspects of CRC in the past, whilst only limited published evidence exists for another three genes (BCL2, PDGFRB and TSC2), and no published evidence directly linking genes to CRC was found for CCNA1, SHC1 and TGFB3. Whilst we used CRC to test and validate our marker discovery strategy, the reported procedures apply more generally to cancer marker discovery.
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.