SynthesisBMC oral health2026
Decoding protein signatures and protein interactions in oral potentially malignant disorders: a systematic review and network analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProteomic profiling offers thorough insights into protein structure and function, as well as it acts as an essential approach for analyzing molecular changes at the tissue level. However, because of the proteome's diversity and dynamic nature, biomarker discovery remains challenging. By combining proteomics with bioinformatics, the level of understanding in relation to molecular interactions and disease processes can be improved. Through an integrative approach, few limitations can be addressed, thereby promoting proteomic profiling for the discovery of new therapeutic targets and novel biomarkers for a variety of disorders.
aimTo identify differentially expressed protein markers and their key molecular pathways associated with Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders.
methodsSystematic Review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines and the protocol registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) with the registration ID number CRD42024557545. A comprehensive literature review was performed using electronic databases, yielding 12,797, studies from which 15 eligible articles were selected. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Vote counting was performed to identify proteins reported in more than one study. A bipartite network was constructed using Cytoscape to identify shared and disease-specific protein markers. Lesion-wise protein-protein interaction networks were generated using STRING and analysed in Cytoscape to identify highly interconnected hub proteins, and pathway enrichment analysis for these hubs was performed using Reactome.
resultsA total of fifteen studies (Leukoplakia (LK) - n = 1, Proliferative Verrucous Leukoplakia (PVL) - n = 2, Oral Submucous Fibrosis (OSMF) - n = 7, and Oral Lichen Planus (OLP) - n = 5) were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate methodological quality and the quality of studies included in this systematic review was high for 4 articles and moderate in the remaining 11. The most commonly employed technique was mass spectrometry. A total of 318 candidate proteins (LK - 14, PVL - 82, OSMF - 172, and OLP - 50) were identified across the oral potentially malignant disorders. Key markers identified through vote counting included ERO1A, NUCB1, RHOA, and IL36A for PVL; LUM, KRT1, KRT9, ALB, and VIM for OSMF; and ALB, LYZ, HP, HBB, and AMY1A for OLP. The bipartite network showed that OSMF and OLP shared the highest number of proteins, indicating the strongest overlap among lesions. Network analysis further highlighted distinct hub proteins for each lesion: for LK- AMY1A, AMY1B and APOA1; for PVL- CFL1, RHOA and CDC42; for OSMF- HSP90AA1, ENO1 and SERPINA1; and for OLP- HP, B2M, and ORM1. Lesion-specific pathway enrichment revealed that LK was associated with epithelial differentiation, PVL with oncogenic signaling, OSMF with stress-driven fibrosis, and OLP with immune-mediated inflammation.
conclusionsProteomic expression offers insights into disease pathogenesis by identifying important molecular changes across OPMDs. However, the majority of biomarkers are still in the exploratory stage due to the considerable variation in lesion types, sample sources, proteomic techniques, and reporting systems. In order to create reliable and clinically applicable biomarkers, future studies should concentrate on combining multi-omics techniques with large-scale, standardized cohorts.
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.