Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39838168›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Identifying key genes in cancer networks using persistent homology.

Rodrigo Henrique Ramos, Yago Augusto Bardelotte, Cynthia de Oliveira Lage Ferreira, Adenilso Simao

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors.

Rodrigo Henrique RamosUniversity of São Paulo, ICMC, São Carlos, 13566-590, Brazil. ramos@ifsp.edu.br.
Yago Augusto BardelotteUniversity of São Paulo, ICMC, São Carlos, 13566-590, Brazil.
Cynthia de Oliveira Lage FerreiraUniversity of São Paulo, ICMC, São Carlos, 13566-590, Brazil.
Adenilso SimaoUniversity of São Paulo, ICMC, São Carlos, 13566-590, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Identifying driver genes is crucial for understanding oncogenesis and developing targeted cancer therapies. Driver discovery methods using protein or pathway networks rely on traditional network science measures, focusing on nodes, edges, or community metrics. These methods can overlook the high-dimensional interactions that cancer genes have within cancer networks. This study presents a novel method using Persistent Homology to analyze the role of driver genes in higher-order structures within Cancer Consensus Networks derived from main cellular pathways. We integrate mutation data from six cancer types and three biological functions: DNA Repair, Chromatin Organization, and Programmed Cell Death. We systematically evaluated the impact of gene removal on topological voids ([Formula: see text] structures) within the Cancer Consensus Networks. Our results reveal that only known driver genes and cancer-associated genes influence these structures, while passenger genes do not. Although centrality measures alone proved insufficient to fully characterize impact genes, combining higher-order topological analysis with traditional network metrics can improve the precision of distinguishing between drivers and passengers. This work shows that cancer genes play an important role in higher-order structures, going beyond pairwise measures, and provides an approach to distinguish drivers and cancer-associated genes from passenger genes.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyGene Regulatory NetworksNeoplasmsDNA RepairHumansMutationCancer genomicsDriver genesPathways networksPersistent homologyProtein networksTopological data analysis

Identifiers

PMID39838168
PMCPMC11751331

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.