ArticleHereditas2025
Identification and validation of shared key genes between Parkinson's disease and erectile dysfunction: a bioinformatics approach.
Article in Hereditas, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundErectile dysfunction (ED) and Parkinson's disease (PD) are prevalent conditions that considerably impair patients' quality of life. Emerging evidence suggests a potential relationship between ED and PD, possibly mediated by shared biological mechanisms. This research seeks to examine shared transcriptomic alterations and the underlying biological pathways associated with ED and PD.
methodsGene expression profiles related to ED and PD were derived from the Gene Expression Omnibus database, specifically the GSE2457 and GSE7621 datasets. Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between patients and controls were identified through differential expression analysis. Functional enrichment analyses, including Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway and Gene Ontology analyses, were carried out to uncover the biological roles of the identified DEGs. To refine and validate potential key genes, machine learning algorithms, such as support vector machine-recursive feature elimination and LASSO regression, were employed. Immune infiltration analysis was carried out to examine potential immune responses related to the identified genes. Additionally, miRNA-gene and protein-protein interaction networks were established. Finally, the reliability of the selected genes was validated through external and experimental verification.
resultsIn total, 25 overlapping DEGs were identified between ED and PD. Functional enrichment analysis demonstrated that these DEGs were involved in such biological processes as redox homeostasis and neuronal cell body function. KEGG pathway analysis indicated significant enrichment in pathways such as adrenergic signaling, cGMP-PKG signaling. Machine learning algorithms further refined the candidate genes, with SHOX2 and PIK3R6 demonstrating strong diagnostic potential. Immune infiltration analysis demonstrated correlations between the gene expression levels and various immune cell types. The constructed miRNA-gene regulatory networks revealed possible post-transcriptional regulatory mechanisms that modulated the expression of these genes. Finally, the diagnostic performance of these genes was verified in external datasets, with their performance further confirmed by ROC analysis and experimental verification.
conclusionThis study identified the shared biological target between ED and PD through bioinformatics analyses. The key genes SHOX2 and PIK3R6 may serve as potential biomarkers. These results may offer new insights into the molecular mechanisms linking ED and PD.
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.