Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39484215›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

COADREADx: A comprehensive algorithmic dissection of colorectal cancer unravels salient biomarkers and actionable insights into its discrete progression.

Ashok Palaniappan, Sangeetha Muthamilselvan, Arjun Sarathi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Multi-omics profiling revealsTranslational lung cancer research · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ashok PalaniappanSystems Computational Biology Lab, Department of Bioinformatics, School of Chemical and Biotechnology, SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sangeetha MuthamilselvanSystems Computational Biology Lab, Department of Bioinformatics, School of Chemical and Biotechnology, SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu, India.
Arjun SarathiNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Colorectal cancer is a common condition with an uncommon burden of disease, heterogeneity in manifestation, and no definitive treatment in the advanced stages. Renewed efforts to unravel the genetic drivers of colorectal cancer progression are paramount. Early-stage detection contributes to the success of cancer therapy and increases the likelihood of a favorable prognosis. Here, we have executed a comprehensive computational workflow aimed at uncovering the discrete stagewise genomic drivers of colorectal cancer progression. Methods: Using the TCGA COADREAD expression data and clinical metadata, we constructed stage-specific linear models as well as contrast models to identify stage-salient differentially expressed genes. Stage-salient differentially expressed genes with a significant monotone trend of expression across the stages were identified as progression-significant biomarkers. The stage-salient genes were benchmarked using normals-augmented dataset, and cross-referenced with existing knowledge. The candidate biomarkers were used to construct the feature space for learning an optimal model for the digital screening of early-stage colorectal cancers. The candidate biomarkers were also examined for constructing a prognostic model based on survival analysis. Results: Among the biomarkers identified are: CRLF1, CALB2, STAC2, UCHL1, KCNG1 (stage-I salient), KLHL34, LPHN3, GREM2, ADCY5, PLAC2, DMRT3 (stage-II salient), PIGR, HABP2, SLC26A9 (stage-III salient), GABRD, DKK1, DLX3, CST6, HOTAIR (stage-IV salient), and CDH3, KRT80, AADACL2, OTOP2, FAM135B, HSP90AB1 (top linear model genes). In particular the study yielded 31 genes that are progression-significant such as ESM1, DKK1, SPDYC, IGFBP1, BIRC7, NKD1, CXCL13, VGLL1, PLAC1, SPERT, UPK2, and interestingly three members of the LY6G6 family. Significant monotonic linear model genes included HIGD1A, ACADS, PEX26, and SPIB. A feature space of just seven biomarkers, namely ESM1, DHRS7C, OTOP3, AADACL2, LPHN3, GABRD, and LPAR1, was sufficient to optimize a RandomForest model that achieved > 98% balanced accuracy (and performant recall) of cancer vs. normal on external validation. Design of an optimal multivariate model based on survival analysis yielded a prognostic panel of three stage-IV salient genes, namely HOTAIR, GABRD, and DKK1. Based on the above sparse signatures, we have developed COADREADx, a web-server for potentially assisting colorectal cancer screening and patient risk stratification. COADREADx provides uncertainty measures for its predictions and needs clinical validation. It has been deployed for experimental non-commercial use at: https://apalanialab.shinyapps.io/coadreadx/.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBiomarkers, TumorColorectal NeoplasmsDisease ProgressionGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansNeoplasm StagingPrognosisSurvival AnalysisBiomarkers, TumorColorectal cancer screeningDifferentially expressed genesMonotonically expressed genesNetwork analysisProgression-significant genesRandom forestRisk stratificationStage-salient genesStagewise linear modelsWeb-server

Identifiers

PMID39484215
PMCPMC11526798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.