ArticleBiochemistry and biophysics reports2025
Screening of biomarkers for diagnosing chronic kidney disease and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction through bioinformatics analysis.
Article in Biochemistry and biophysics reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modeling genotype-by-environment interactions across climatic conditions reveals environment-specific genomic regions and candidate genes underlying feed efficiency traits in tropical beef cattle.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Heart rate transition patterns reveal autonomic dysfunction in heart failure with renal function decline: a symbolic and Markov model approach.BioData mining · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Previous research has established that chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) often coexist. Although we have a preliminary understanding of the potential correlation between HFpEF and CKD, the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms remain unclear. This study aimed to elucidate the molecular mechanisms associated with CKD and HFpEF through bioinformatics analysis. Methods: Datasets for HFpEF and CKD were obtained from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database. The R software package "limma" was employed to conduct differential expression analysis. Functional annotation was performed using the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) and Gene Ontology (GO). We conducted weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA), correlation analysis with autophagy, ferroptosis, and immune-related processes, as well as transcriptional regulation analysis, immune infiltration analysis, and diagnostic performance evaluation. Finally, the diagnostic potential of the identified hub genes for CKD and HFpEF was assessed using ROC curve analysis (GSE37171). Results: Differential expression analysis revealed 58 overlapping genes, comprised of 40 up-regulated and 18 down-regulated genes. Both GO and KEGG analyses indicated enriched pathways relevant to both disorders. WGCNA identified 4086 genes associated with CKD. Further comparison with differentially expressed genes (DEGs) identified three hub genes (KLF4, SCD, and SEL1L3) that were linked to autophagy, ferroptosis, and immune processes in both conditions. Additionally, a miRNA-mRNA regulatory network involving 376 miRNAs and 12 transcription factors (TFs) was constructed. ROC curve analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic utility of the hub genes for CKD and HFpEF. Conclusion: This study elucidated shared pathogenic mechanisms and identified diagnostic markers common to both HFpEF and CKD. The identified hub genes show promise as potential tools for early diagnosis and treatment strategies for these conditions.
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.