ArticleGland surgery2024
Causal relationship between cathepsins and major salivary gland neoplasms: a bidirectional Mendelian randomization study.
Article in Gland surgery, 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.
- Deciphering novel targets in salivary gland pleomorphic adenoma by integrating plasma proteomics and parotid transcriptomics analyses.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Observational studies have suggested a potential link between cathepsins and major salivary gland neoplasms (MSGNs), but the causality of this relationship remains uncertain. Mendelian randomization (MR) is a significant genetic method that employs single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as instrumental variables (IVs). This approach reduces confounding effects, enabling the analysis of causal relationships between exposure traits and outcome diseases. This study aimed to explore the causal links between cathepsins and MSGNs by utilizing MR analysis. Methods: In this research, we collected IVs associated with 11 different types of cathepsins (including cathepsins D, L1, B, E, F, G, H, O, S, L2, and Z) from the Medical Research Council (MRC) integrative epidemiology unit (IEU) open genome-wide association studies (GWAS) database. Data for cathepsins D and L1 were sourced from the SCALLOP consortium, which included 21,758 Europeans identified via the Olink proximity extension assay (PEA). Cathepsins B, E, F, G, H, O, S, L2, and Z were obtained from the INTERVAL study involving 3,301 European participants using the SOMAscan assay. We also collected data on benign major salivary gland neoplasms (BMSGNs) from the FinnGen database, consisting of 3,353 cases and 450,380 controls, and information on major salivary gland carcinomas (MSGCs) from the UK Biobank, which included 105 cases and 456,243 controls. Diagnostic criteria for both BMSGNs and MSGCs followed the international statistical classification of diseases and related health problems 10th revision (ICD-10) classification. A comprehensive bidirectional MR study was executed employing diverse methodologies, including inverse variance weighted (IVW), MR-Egger regression, weighted median, and weighted mode. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to emphasize the solidity of the study. Results: Increased levels of cathepsin F (CTSF), cathepsin O (CTSO), and cathepsin L2 (CTSL2) were associated with a higher risk of BMSGNs (CTSF: IVW: P=0.01, odds ratio (OR) =1.12, CTSO: IVW: P=0.02, OR =1.14; CTSL2: IVW: P=0.01, OR =1.17). Additionally, no causal association was found between cathepsins and MSGCs. Reverse MR analyses did not establish a causal relationship between BMSGNs and various cathepsins. However, it did reveal that a higher risk of MSGCs was associated with lower levels of CTSL2 (IVW: P=0.01, beta =-0.046). Conclusions: The study presents compelling evidence of a correlation between elevated CTSF, CTSO, and CTSL2 levels and an increased risk of BMSGNs. Elevated CTSF, CTSO, and CTSL2 levels may serve as significant biomarkers for diagnosing BMSGNs definitively. Conversely, reduced levels of CTSL2 provide a novel foundation for diagnosing MSGCs and differentiating them from BMSGNs. Moreover, CTSF, CTSO, and CTSL2 represent potential new targets for therapeutic intervention in BMSGNs and MSGCs.
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.