ArticleGenes2022
Prognostic, Clinicopathological, and Function of Key Cuproptosis Regulator
Article in Genes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring regulated cell death in renal cell carcinoma: mechanistic insights and therapeutic perspectives.Apoptosis : an international journal on programmed cell death · 2026Review
- Development and validation of mitochondrial metabolism-related genes in the prognostic and immunological characterization of clear cell renal cell carcinoma.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Article
- Frontier knowledge and future directions of programmed cell death in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.Cell death discovery · 2024Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most common histological subtype of renal cancer. Cuproptosis is suggested to be a novel therapy target for cancer treatment. However, the function of cuproptosis and its key regulator FDX1 in ccRCC remains unclear. In this study, we adequately explored the prognostic factors, clinicopathological characteristics, and function of FDX1 in ccRCC. We found that the expression of FDX1 was significantly downregulated in ccRCC samples. Patients with a higher FDX1 expression had a significantly better prognosis, including overall survival (OS) (Hazard ratio (HR): 2.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.82−3.53, p < 0.001), disease-specific survival (DSS) (HR: 3.04, 95% CI: 2.04−4.54, p < 0.001), and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR: 2.54, 95% CI: 1.82−3.53, p < 0.001). FDX1 was a clinical predictor to stratify patients into the high or low risk of poor survival, independent of conventional clinical features, with the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.658, 0.677, and 0.656 for predicting the 5-year OS, DSS, and PFS. The nomogram model based on FDX1 had greater predictive power than other individual prognostic parameters. FDX1 mainly participated in the oxidative-related process and mitochondrial respiration-related processes but was not associated with immune infiltration levels. In conclusion, the cuproptosis key regulator FDX1 could serve as a potential novel prognostic biomarker for ccRCC 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.