ArticleHeliyon2024
A cuproptosis-related prognostic signature for guiding clinical diagnosis and treatment in uveal melanoma patients.
Article in Heliyon, 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.
- Iron, copper and disulfide dysregulation: molecular crossroads of metabolic cell death in melanoma progression.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
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
Background: Cuproptosis, one of the most recently discovered forms of cell death, is induced by the disruption of copper binding to the mitochondrial respiratory acylation components. However, the mechanism underlying cuproptosis in uveal melanoma (UM) has not yet been adequately studied. Methods: RNA and clinical data were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database. Differentially expressed cuproptosis-related genes were identified by R software. A prognostic signature was constructed by applying LASSO regression and Cox regression models. The associations between the signature and the immune microenvironment, overall survival, and drug sensitivity were studied. In addition, qPCR and Western blotting were performed on UM cells and RPE cell lines to verify the expression levels of the genes encoding dihydrolipoamide dehydrogenase (DLD) and dihydrolipoamide S-succinyltransferase (DLST) in UM cases. Results: Using a cuproptosis-related prognostic signature, UM samples were classified into high- and low-risk groups. A significant difference in overall survival between the two risk groups was evident. Receiver operating characteristic curves demonstrated that the signature is a reliable predictor of prognosis. Immune cell infiltration, drug sensitivity, and immune checkpoint expression were analysed. Significant immune difference between the two high-risk groups was found, and the high expression of immune checkpoints in high-risk groups suggests significant immunotherapy potential. In addition, drug sensitivity analysis experiments suggest that erlotinib may be a potential treatment for high-risk patients. The results of in vitro experiments confirmed that DLD and DLST had higher expression levels in UM cell lines. Conclusions: The prognostic signature developed in this study is a reliable biomarker for predicting the prognosis of UM and may serve as a tool for personalised treatment of patients with UM.
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.