ArticleScientific reports2025
Identification of potential biomarkers for 2022 Mpox virus infection: a transcriptomic network analysis and machine learning approach.
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 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A hybrid machine learning framework with two-step feature selection for identifying key biomarkers and drug targets in monkeypox.Biochemistry and biophysics reports · 2026Article
- Uncloaking the black-box: the need for explainable artificial intelligence in clinical microbiology and infectious diseases applications.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Unveiling Immune Response Mechanisms in Mpox Infection Through Machine Learning Analysis of Time Series Gene Expression Data.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Clinical efficacy and regulatory mechanisms of Shi Pi Zeng Ye formula in treating functional constipation comorbid with depression: integrating clinical observation, mass spectrometry, bioinformatics, and molecular docking.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
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
Monkeypox virus (MPXV), a zoonotic pathogen, re-emerged in 2022 with the Clade IIb variant, raising global health concerns due to its unprecedented spread in non-endemic regions. Recent studies have shown that Clade IIb (2022 MPXV) is marked by unique genomic mutations and epidemiological behaviors, suggesting variations in host-virus interactions. This study aimed to identify the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) induced by the 2022 MPXV infection through comprehensive bioinformatics analyses of microarray and RNA-Seq datasets from post-infected cell types with different MPXV clades. Subsequently, gene expression network analyses pinpoint the key DEGs, followed by their candidate drug assessment using the Drug SIGnatures DataBase (DSigDB) and validation by multiple machine learning algorithms. Comparative differential gene expression (DGE) analysis revealed 798 DEGs exclusive to the 2022 MPXV invasion in the skin cell types (keratinocytes). Intriguingly, 13 key DEGs were identified across hubs and clusters, highlighting their aberrant expressions in cell cycle regulation, immune responses, and cancer pathways. Biomarker screening via Random Forest (RF) model (selected with PyCaret from multiple models) and validation through t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) algorithm, principal component analysis (PCA), and ROC curve analysis employing Logistic Regression and Random Forest, identified 6 key DEGs (TXNRD1, CCNB1, BUB1, CDC20, BUB1B, and CCNA2) as promising biomarkers (AUC > 0.7) for clade IIb infection. This study anticipates that further investigation and clinical trials will catalyze novel detection and therapeutic options to combat 2022 MPXV infection in humans.
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.