ArticleDiabetologia2017
Evidence-based prioritisation and enrichment of genes interacting with metformin in type 2 diabetes.
Article in Diabetologia, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic and Clinical Determinants of Variation in Drug Response in Type 2 Diabetes: Insights From the Scottish and UK Biobank Cohorts.Diabetes, obesity & metabolism · 2026Article
- The Genetic Polymorphisms of rs161620 and rs2229611 in G6PC 3'UTR Are Associated With Metformin Efficacy in Chinese Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2025Article
- Metformin lowers glucose 6-phosphate in hepatocytes by activation of glycolysis downstream of glucose phosphorylation.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
aims/hypothesisThere is an extensive body of literature suggesting the involvement of multiple loci in regulating the action of metformin; most findings lack replication, without which distinguishing true-positive from false-positive findings is difficult. To address this, we undertook evidence-based, multiple data integration to determine the validity of published evidence.
methodsWe (1) built a database of published data on gene-metformin interactions using an automated text-mining approach (n = 5963 publications), (2) generated evidence scores for each reported locus, (3) from which a rank-ordered gene set was generated, and (4) determined the extent to which this gene set was enriched for glycaemic response through replication analyses in a well-powered independent genome-wide association study (GWAS) dataset from the Genetics of Diabetes and Audit Research Tayside Study (GoDARTS).
resultsFrom the literature search, seven genes were identified that are related to the clinical outcomes of metformin. Fifteen genes were linked with either metformin pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics, and the expression profiles of a further 51 genes were found to be responsive to metformin. Gene-set enrichment analysis consisting of the three sets and two more composite sets derived from the above three showed no significant enrichment in four of the gene sets. However, we detected significant enrichment of genes in the least prioritised category (a gene set in which their expression is affected by metformin) with glycaemic response to metformin (p = 0.03). This gene set includes novel candidate genes such as SLC2A4 (p = 3.24 × 10 CONCLUSIONS/
interpretationWe have described a semi-automated text-mining and evidence-scoring algorithm that facilitates the organisation and extraction of useful information about gene-drug interactions. We further validated the output of this algorithm in a drug-response GWAS dataset, providing novel candidate loci for gene-metformin interactions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.