ArticlePloS one2025
Identification of potential biomarkers and therapeutic targets for underactive bladder based on bioinformatics analysis and experimental validation.
Article in PloS one, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Underactive bladder (UAB) is a common disorder that significantly affects patients' quality of life, necessitating the exploration of underlying molecular mechanisms for more effective management. This study aims to elucidate the gene expression profiles associated with UAB by employing a combination of bioinformatics analyses and experimental validation to identify pivotal hub genes and potential therapeutic targets. We accessed the GSE122060 and GSE100219 datasets from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs), followed by functional enrichment analysis, construction of a protein-protein interaction (PPI) network, screening for hub genes and assess the accuracy and diagnostic value of the hub genes with the validation dataset GSE28242. Eighty-five DEGs were identified from the GEO dataset, with functional enrichment analysis focusing primarily on biological processes like neutrophil migration, cell chemotaxis, and bacterial defense responses. Twelve key genes were identified in the PPI network using CytoHubba and MCODE plugins. Of these, C3, CLEC4E, CSF3R, CXCR2, FPR2, and IDO1 showed significant upregulation in the validation set compared to the control group. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis demonstrated that these six hub genes possess high diagnostic potential, with area under the curve (AUC) values greater than 0.76. Additionally, a hub gene-transcription factor (TF) interaction network, a hub gene-TF-miRNA co-regulatory network and a hub gene-drug interaction network were constructed, revealing that five TFs and five miRNAs regulate three or more hub genes. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) validation confirmed the differential expression patterns of the 12 key genes in the PPI network in TGF-β1 treated SV-HUC-1 cells. In conclusion, our findings suggest that CLEC4E, CSF3R, CXCR2, FPR2, and IDO1 can serve as promising diagnostic biomarkers for UAB, while the identified TFs and miRNAs could unveil new avenues for drug discovery and therapeutic interventions targeting UAB progression.
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.