ArticleAging2024
Causal relationship between gut microbiota and risk of esophageal cancer: evidence from Mendelian randomization study.
Article in Aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mitochondria-Related Genome-Wide Mendelian Randomization Identifies Putatively Genes for Chronic Fatigue.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Article
- Article
- Gut Microbiota and Primary Liver Cancer: Mendelian Randomization and Network Pharmacology Used to Predict Potential Therapeutic Intervention With Traditional Chinese Medicine.International journal of genomics · 2026Article
- Mendelian randomization analysis of gut microbiota-immune cell interactions in malignant neoplasm of nasopharynx.AMB Express · 2025Article
- The causal relationship between immune cell phenotypes and esophageal cancer development: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- The role of immune cells in cirrhosis: evidence from a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Metabolic reprogramming shapes the immune microenvironment in pancreatic adenocarcinoma: prognostic implications and therapeutic targets.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
- Circulating cell-free DNA methylation analysis of pancreatic cancer patients for early noninvasive diagnosis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Causal relationship between immune cells and risk of myocardial infarction: evidence from a Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Improving precision management of anxiety disorders: a Mendelian randomization study targeting specific gut microbiota and associated metabolites.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Gut Microbiota's role in lipoma development: evidence from mendelian randomization.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Causal relationship between immune cells and risk of heart failure: evidence from a Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe causative implications remain ambiguous. Consequently, this study aims to evaluate the putative causal relationship between gut microbiota and Esophageal cancer (EC).
methodsThe genome-wide association study (GWAS) pertaining to the microbiome, derived from the MiBioGen consortium-which consolidates 18,340 samples across 24 population-based cohorts-was utilized as the exposure dataset. Employing the GWAS summary statistics specific to EC patients sourced from the GWAS Catalog and leveraging the two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) methodology, the principal analytical method applied was the inverse variance weighted (IVW) technique. Cochran's Q statistic was utilized to discern heterogeneity inherent in the data set. Subsequently, a reverse MR analysis was executed.
resultsFindings derived from the IVW technique elucidated that the Family Porphyromonadaceae (P = 0.048) and Genus Candidatus Soleaferrea (P = 0.048) function as deterrents against EC development. In contrast, the Genus Catenibacterium (P = 0.044), Genus Eubacterium coprostanoligenes group (P = 0.038), Genus Marvinbryantia (P = 0.049), Genus Ruminococcaceae UCG010 (P = 0.034), Genus Ruminococcus1 (P = 0.047), and Genus Sutterella (P = 0.012) emerged as prospective risk contributors for EC. To assess reverse causal effect, we used EC as the exposure and the gut microbiota as the outcome, and this analysis revealed associations between EC and seven different types of gut microbiota. The robustness of the MR findings was substantiated through comprehensive heterogeneity and pleiotropy evaluations.
conclusionsThis research identified certain microbial taxa as either protective or detrimental elements for EC, potentially offering valuable biomarkers for asymptomatic diagnosis and prospective therapeutic interventions for EC.
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.