ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
A multi-omics approach elucidates the link between artificial food colorings and common cancers.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial food colorings (AFCs) are widely used, yet their potential links to cancer remain unclear. We investigated associations between commonly used AFCs and cancer-related molecular networks and prognosis. Methods: AFCs-related targets were collected from CTD, ChEMBL, SEA, and TargetNet, and cancer-related targets from GeneCards, OMIM, and CTD. Overlapping targets were subjected to STRING-based PPI analysis and Cytoscape visualization, followed by GO/KEGG enrichment. Core targets were evaluated for differential expression in GEO datasets of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), colon adenocarcinoma (COAD), gastric cancer (GC), and breast cancer (BRCA), with GSEA for pathway characterization. Expression patterns were examined using GEPIA2. TCGA transcriptomic and clinical data were used to construct prognostic models via univariate Cox regression, LASSO selection, and multivariate Cox regression. Key genes were assessed using the Human Protein Atlas (HPA) and qPCR, and Results: Four high-exposure AFCs were analyzed. We identified 108 shared AFCs-cancer targets and prioritized 50 core targets. Enrichment analyses highlighted cancer-relevant functional themes, including cell-cycle regulation (cyclin-dependent protein kinase holoenzyme complex) and oncogenic signaling (PI3K-Akt pathway). Multiple core targets were dysregulated in GEO tumor datasets, and GSEA identified consistently enriched pathways across cancer types. TCGA-derived signatures stratified patients into distinct risk groups with significantly different overall survival. HPA supported protein-level differences for selected targets, qPCR indicated that Allura Red AC or Tartrazine modulated prognostic gene expression in cancer cell lines, and AFCs exposure was associated with accelerated LLC tumor growth in mice. Conclusion: This integrative analysis suggests that commonly used AFCs may be associated with cancer-related molecular networks and adverse prognosis in NSCLC, COAD, GC, and BRCA, informing future safety evaluation and regulation.
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.