ArticleHereditas2023
Development and validation of an RBP gene signature for prognosis prediction in colorectal cancer based on WGCNA.
Article in Hereditas, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Molecular subtyping and the construction of a predictive model of colorectal cancer based on ion channel genes.European journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Identification of diagnostic biomarkers via weighted correlation network analysis in colorectal cancer using a system biology approach.Scientific reports · 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
16 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRNA binding proteins (RBPs) have been implicated in oncogenesis and progression in various cancers. However, the potential value of RBPs as prognostic indicators and therapeutic targets in colorectal cancer (CRC) requires further investigation.
methodsFour thousand eighty two RBPs were collected from literature. The weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) was performed to identify prognosis-related RBP gene modules based on the data attained from the TCGA cohorts. LASSO algorithm was conducted to establish a prognostic risk model, and the validity of the proposed model was confirmed by an independent GEO dataset. Functional enrichment analysis was performed to reveal the potential biological functions and pathways of the signature and to estimate tumor immune infiltration. Potential therapeutic compounds were inferred utilizing CMap database. Expressions of hub genes were further verified through the Human Protein Atlas (HPA) database and RT-qPCR.
resultsOne thousand seven hundred thirty four RBPs were differently expressed in CRC samples and 4 gene modules remarkably linked to the prognosis were identified, based on which a 12-gene signature was established for prognosis prediction. Multivariate Cox analysis suggested this signature was an independent predicting factor of overall survival (P < 0.001; HR:3.682; CI:2.377-5.705) and ROC curves indicated it has an effective predictive performance (1-year AUC: 0.653; 3-year AUC:0.673; 5-year AUC: 0.777). GSEA indicated that high risk score was correlated with several cancer-related pathways, including cytokine-cytokine receptor cross talk, ECM receptor cross talk, HEDGEHOG signaling cascade and JAK/STAT signaling cascade. ssGSEA analysis exhibited a significant correlation between immune status and the risk signature. Noscapine and clofazimine were screened as potential drugs for CRC patients with high-risk scores. TDRD5 and GPC1 were identified as hub genes and their expression were validated in 15 pairs of surgically resected CRC tissues.
conclusionOur research provides a depth insight of RBPs' role in CRC and the proposed signature are helpful to the personalized treatment and prognostic judgement.
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.