ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Deciphering glycosylation-driven prognostic insights and therapeutic prospects in glioblastoma through a comprehensive regulatory model.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The oncogenesis and development of glioblastoma multiforme have been linked to glycosylation modifications, which are common post-translational protein modifications. Abnormal glycosyltransferase development leads to irregular glycosylation patterns, which hold clinical significance for GB prognosis. By utilizing both single-cell and bulk data, we developed a scoring system to assess glycosylation levels in GB. Moreover, a glycosylation-based signature was created to predict GB outcomes and therapy responsiveness. The study led to the development of an glyco-model incorporating nine key genes. This risk assessment tool effectively stratified GB patients into two distinct groups. Extensive validation through ROC analysis, RMST, and Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis emphasized the model's robust predictive capabilities. Additionally, a nomogram was constructed to predict survival rates at specific time intervals. The research revealed substantial disparities in immune cell infiltration between low-risk and high-risk groups, characterized by differences in immune cell abundance and elevated immune scores. Notably, the glyco-model predicted diverse responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors and drug therapies, with high-risk groups exhibiting a preference for immune checkpoint inhibitors and demonstrated superior responses to drug treatments. Furthermore, the study identified two potential drug targets and utilized Connectivity Map analysis to pinpoint promising therapeutic agents. Clofarabine and YM155 were identified as potent candidates for the treatment of high-risk GB. Our well-crafted glyco-model effectively discriminates patients by calculating the risk score, accurately predicting GB outcomes, and significantly enhancing prognostic assessment while identifying novel immunotherapeutic and chemotherapeutic strategies for GB treatment.
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.