ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
A novel lactylation-related gene signature to predict prognosis and treatment response in lung adenocarcinoma.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research progress on lactate metabolism in lung cancer: Tumorigenesis, drug resistance and clinical translation (Review).Oncology reports · 2026Review
- Lactylation-related genes signature panel in hepatocellular carcinoma reveals the prognostic and therapeutic optimization.Molecular & cellular oncology · 2026Article
- A lactylation modification-related prediction model for the diagnosis of ulcerative colitis based on machine learning.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Integrated bulk and single-cell transcriptomics to develop an efferocytosis-related prognostic model for lung adenocarcinoma and validate the key gene LDHA.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Lactylation-related multigene signature in multiple myeloma: integrated prognostic stratification, immune landscape profiling, and therapeutic guidance.Immunologic research · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lactylation, a novel post-translational modification, has emerged as a critical regulatory mechanism in various biological processes, including tumor progression. However, its role and associated gene signatures in lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD) remain unclear. Methods: RNA sequencing data of LUAD patients were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) databases. Unsupervised clustering was used to identify lactylation-related genes. A risk prognostic model was constructed using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression analysis and subsequently validated. A nomogram was then employed to optimize the clinical applicability of the risk score. Additionally, various algorithms were used to explore the relationship between the risk score and immune infiltration levels, with model genes analyzed based on single-cell sequencing. The effects of RCCD1 knockdown on LUAD cell proliferation and migration were evaluated through CCK8 and transwell assays. Results: Higher risk scores were associated with poorer overall survival prognosis. Immune analysis revealed that the risk score may play a role in regulating the tumor microenvironment. Additionally, these risk scores were found to be associated with chemotherapy drug sensitivity. A series of experiments further demonstrated that RCCD1 promotes LUAD cell proliferation and migration Conclusion: This study highlights the critical role of lactylation-related gene signatures in LUAD and their association with immune cell infiltration, providing insights into potential therapeutic targets and biomarkers for clinical application.
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.