ArticleBiochemistry and biophysics reports2024
Identification of prognostic risk score of disulfidptosis-related genes and molecular subtypes in glioma.
Article in Biochemistry and biophysics reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Disulfidptosis: molecular mechanisms and therapeutic targets.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Programmed cell death is closely related to glioma. As a novel kind of cell death, the mechanism of disulfidptosis in glioma remains unclear. Therefore, it is of great importance to study the role of disulfidptosis-related genes (DRGs) in glioma. Methods: We first investigated the genetic and transcriptional alterations of 15 DRGs. Two consensus cluster analyses were used to evaluate the association between DRGs and glioma subtypes. In addition, we constructed prognostic DRG risk scores to predict overall survival (OS) in glioma patients. Furthermore, we developed a nomogram to enhance the clinical utility of the DRG risk score. Finally, the expression levels of DRGs were verified by immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining. Results: Most DRGs (14/15) were dysregulated in gliomas. The 15 DRGs were rarely mutated in gliomas, and only 50 of 987 samples (5.07 %) showed gene mutations. However, most of them had copy number variation (CNV) deletions or amplifications. Two distinct molecular subtypes were identified by cluster analysis, and DRG alterations were found to be related to the clinical characteristics, prognosis, and tumor immune microenvironment (TIME). The DRG risk score model based on 12 genes was developed and showed good performance in predicting OS. The nomogram confirmed that the risk score had a particularly strong influence on the prognosis of glioma. Furthermore, we discovered that low DRG scores, low tumor mutation burden, and immunosuppression were features of patients with better prognoses. Conclusion: The DRG risk model can be used for the evaluation of clinical characteristics, prognosis prediction, and TIME estimation of glioma patients. These DRGs may be potential therapeutic targets in glioma.
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.