ReviewFEBS letters2024
Why an integrated view of gene expression studies on hematopoiesis in mouse aging is better than the sum of their parts.
Review in FEBS letters, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Globally, the human population is aging, with an increased proportion of people in "old age" (over 60 years). This trend leads to a growing demand in aging research, stimulating studies in animal models such as mice, fish, and invertebrates. Recently, we published a research summary on the aging of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in C57BL/6 mice based on 12 gene expression datasets. Here, I discuss in greater detail the added value of taking an integrated view, rather than considering each publication separately, to determine genes involved in aging. Considerable variation exists between lists of differentially expressed (DE) genes in HSCs, comparing young and old mice. This variation can result from factors such as inconsistent definitions of "young" and "old", technical variations and variations between laboratory mouse strains. We previously demonstrated that the variation between gene lists could be circumvented by forming a unified list of DE genes-the "aging list"-with citation indexes attached. The most frequently detected DE genes [approximately 200 most cited, which we named the "aging signature" (AS)] were highly consistent across publications. Gene Ontology classification of the AS list identified additional sources of variation between studies: one comes from the specifics of how the data are collected and analyzed; another comes from inconsistencies between how we define the gene categories. As discussed, overcoming these variations is the next challenge toward an integral approach to our systematic knowledge of the aging process.
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.