ArticleTranslational cancer research2023
Proteomic analysis of small extracellular vesicles unique to cervical cancer.
Article in Translational cancer research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Elevated Circulating Extracellular Vesicles as Prognostic Biomarkers in Cervical Cancer Progression.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Mesenchymal Stem Cell-Derived Exosomes Reprogram Chemosensitivity Pathways in Cervical Cancer Spheroids.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Exosomes as Emerging Non-Invasive Biomarkers of Cervical Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cancers · 2025Review
- Current trends in theranostic applications of extracellular vesicles in cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cervical cancer (CC) is the fourth most common cancer in females worldwide. Existing biomarkers for CC, such as squamous cell carcinoma antigens, show low specificity. Hence, a novel biomarker for the diagnosis of CC is required. Through proteomic analysis, this study aimed to distinguish between the small extracellular vesicle (sEV) protein profiles of healthy controls (HC) and CC sera and to identify potential sEV proteins that can serve as biomarkers for CC diagnosis. Methods: The number and size distribution of sEVs in HC and CC sera were measured using nanoparticle tracking analysis. Differential ultracentrifugation combined with size-exclusion chromatography was used to isolate and purify sEVs. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was used to identify and compare the protein profiles between patients with CC and HC. Differentially expressed extracellular vesicle (EV) proteins were validated using The Cancer Genome Atlas database. Results: The EV particle concentration in patients with CC was marginally higher than that in HC. Proteomic and functional protein analyses revealed a difference in the EV protein profiles between HC and CC and identified proteins that can serve as biomarkers for CC. Conclusions: This study provides insights into the potential of sEVs as less invasive biomarkers for CC diagnosis. Validation with a well-designed cohort should be performed to determine the clinical diagnostic value of specific protein markers for CC.
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.