ArticleDiscover oncology2025
Unraveling the causal relationship and underlying mechanisms between cathepsins on liver cancer: findings from mendelian randomization and bioinformatics analysis.
Article in Discover oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) are two major types of primary liver cancer (PLC). Earlier research has indicated a potential link between cathepsins and liver cancer. Nonetheless, there have been limited clinical trials examining the connection between cathepsins and PLC. Therefore, we conducted a two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) study to evaluate the causal relationship between cathepsins and PLC.
methodsData from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) focusing on cathepsins was collected. Additionally, summary data for GCST90018803 (Hepatic bile duct cancer, HBDC), and GCST90018858 (related to hepatic cancer, HC), were employed in the discovery and validation phases of the study, respectively. The inverse variance weighted (IVW) method was served as the primary analytical method in our Mendelian randomization (MR) study, supplemented by the MR-Egger, weighted median, simple mode, and weighted mode methods. To assess heterogeneity and pleiotropy, we conducted the MR-Egger intercept test, Cochran's Q test, as well as the MR-Pleiotropy RESidual Sum and Outlier (MR-PRESSO) analysis, along with the leave-one-out analysis. After that, bioinformatic analysis based on the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) databases were utilized, Gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) functional enrichment analysis were utilized for exploring the underlying mechanisms. Additionally, protein-protein docking was employed to confirm the interaction between related proteins.
resultsThe results showed that cathepsin F (CTSF), was causally associated with HBDC. CTSF decrease the risk of HBDC (OR = 0.826, 95% CI 0.711-0.959, P = 0.012). CTSF may play protective roles in patients with HBDC. No heterogeneity or pleiotropy was observed. Additionally, the expression of CTSF genes is lower in patients with HBDC, GO and KEGG functional enrichment analysis revealed CTSF were mainly related to cell cycle, and P53 pathway in HBDC. Docking results showed that CTSF had good binding ability with MDM2, the most well-established negative regulator of p53.
conclusionThis study provided new evidence of the relationship between CTSF and HBDC, suggesting that CTSF plays an inhibition role in HBDC progression. CTSF could be a novel and effective way to for HDBC treatment.
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.