ArticleScientific reports2026
Integrating multi-omics analysis identifies DNA damage-related gene CLSPN as a biomarker in gastric cancer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
DNA damage exhibits a strong correlation with gastric cancer (GC). However, there is still a paucity of comprehensive, in-depth investigations into this relationship. We aimed to explore the association between DNA damage-related genes and GC to provide insights into its molecular mechanisms and potential biomarkers. For this study, Bulk RNA sequencing data of GC were obtained from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), single-cell RNA sequencing datasets were retrieved from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), and a DNA damage-associated gene set was sourced from the GeneCards database. Through the application of survival analysis, differential expression gene analysis, and weighted gene co-expression network analysis, we identified DNA damage-related genes potentially linked to GC. Subsequently, multiple machine learning approaches were employed to screen out hub genes with considerable diagnostic potential. Analysis of bulk RNA sequencing data verified gene expression patterns in GC. Single-cell analysis further demonstrated cell-type-specific gene expression, and immunohistochemical experiments were conducted to validate the potential biomarker utility of key genes. Our findings revealed that thirteen DNA damage-related genes that may be linked to GC were identified. Subsequently, CLSPN and SALL4 were screened out as hub genes possessing considerable diagnostic potential. Analysis of bulk RNA sequencing data verified the upregulated expression of these two genes in GC, thereby underscoring their predictive significance. Across multiple machine learning methods, CLSPN was consistently ranked as the gene with the highest importance. Single-cell analysis further demonstrated that CLSPN is predominantly highly expressed in tumor cells, which emphasizes its cell-type-specific function in GC. To validate CLSPN's potential as a biomarker, we conducted immunohistochemical experiments; these experiments showed high CLSPN expression in GC tissues, and the expression levels were significantly correlated with age, tumor size, pT stage and lymph node metastasis. This study reinforces the link between DNA damage and GC and offers fresh perspectives on its underlying molecular mechanisms. Nonetheless, further validation in clinical evaluation is essential to confirm its practical value for GC management strategies.
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.