ArticleBioscience reports2024
Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma methylation markers in salivary DNA.
Article in Bioscience reports, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantification of DNA Methylation for Diagnosis and Monitoring of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of the American College of Surgeons · 2026Article
- When Genes Wear Marks: Epigenomic Modulation in the Development and Progression of Obesity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Comprehensive review and updated analysis of DNA methylation in hepatocellular carcinoma: From basic research to clinical application.Clinical and translational medicine · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlterations to DNA methylation have been identified in both hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tumor and circulating DNA from affected individuals. These markers have potential utility in HCC screening. Adherence to HCC screening is poor and acceptable HCC screening tests are needed.
methodsA feasibility study was performed on a subset of case patients and control subjects from a prior study of risk factors for HCC. Case patients (n=12) included adults aged 47-85 years with a first diagnosis of HCC between 2011 and 2016 and without viral hepatitis. Control subjects (n=12) were matched on age, sex, and state of residence. Participants provided saliva samples for DNA genotyping. Log fold change in salivary DNA methylation at 1359 CpG sites representing 25 candidate genes previously associated with HCC was compared across case patients and control subjects.
resultsThe quantity of DNA ranged from 9.65 to 257.79 μg. The purity of DNA isolates was good, with mean OD260/280 ratio of 1.78 (SD: 0.14). Of 25 candidate genes, 16 had at ≥1 CpG site with detectable differences in methylation across HCC case patients and control subjects. Sites differentially methylated in HCC case patients included genes encoding tumor suppressors (PRDM2, RUNX3, p15/16, and RASSF1/5), regulators of cell cycle progression (DAPK1 and TP73), and DNA repair (MGMT and GSTP1). No associations met the significance threshold 3.7 × 10-5 required for multiple comparisons.
conclusionsSalivary DNA may be a feasible alternative to blood samples in the era of novel DNA-based screening tests for HCC. The ease of saliva-based testing supports further investigation of its potential.
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.