Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 92 references

Transcriptome signature for the identification of bevacizumab responders in ovarian cancer

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 14-gene tumor expression signature could identify which ovarian cancer patients gain a survival benefit from bevacizumab.

desk verdict New cohort and a plausible candidate signature, but the DASL 'validation' is not independent and the interaction tests don't clear the bar; the paper is a useful hypothesis-generation report, not a validated biomarker. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04869 v1 pith:ICDIMADE submitted 2025-01-08 q-bio.GN

Olga Zolotareva , Karen Legler , Olga Tsoy , Anna Esteve , Alexey Sergushichev , Vladimir Sukhov , Jan Baumbach , Kathrin Eylmann
show 5 more authors
Minyue Qi Malik Alawi Stefan Kommoss Barbara Schmalfeldt Leticia Oliveira-Ferrer
This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.GN
keywords ovariancancertranscriptomeexpressionsignaturebevacizumabresponsebicluster84CTCFLstemnessoverallsurvival
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a gene-expression pattern in ovarian tumor tissue can tell which patients will live longer when bevacizumab is added to standard platinum-based chemotherapy. In a new RNA-seq cohort of 181 patients and an earlier microarray cohort of 377 patients, those whose tumors overexpressed the pattern, called the bicluster 84 signature, showed improved overall survival with bevacizumab, with hazard ratios of 0.41 and 0.51, while patients without the signature showed no significant benefit. The authors interpret the signature as a marker of cancer stemness driven by activation of the transcription factor CTCFL, which regulates VEGF-A, the molecule bevacizumab blocks. If true, the signature would give clinicians a test for deciding who should receive bevacizumab and who can be spared its side effects.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a differentially expressed bicluster: a submatrix of the expression data in which a set of genes is concordantly over- or under-expressed in a subset of samples, splitting all tumors into two groups. The bicluster 84 signature was found by unsupervised biclustering in the discovery cohort, replicated in two independent cohorts, prioritized by random-survival-forest importance, and tested in proportional-hazards models adjusted for age, tumor stage, and surgery outcome. Its biological anchor is CTCFL/BORIS, a master transcription factor that maintains cancer stemness, regulates VEGF-A, and appears among the genes whose expression defines the signature.

What would settle it

A randomized trial with tumor expression profiling would settle it: if patients randomized to bevacizumab who overexpress bicluster 84 do not show a materially lower hazard of death than signature-positive control patients, or if the treatment-by-signature interaction is null, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a reproducible transcriptomic signature, bicluster 84, that identifies ovarian cancer patients whose overall survival improves when bevacizumab is added to standard chemotherapy. The signature is a set of genes concordantly overexpressed in one tumor subgroup; in patients with that overexpression, bevacizumab treatment was associated with a hazard ratio of 0.41 (95% CI 0.23–0.74) in the discovery RNA-seq cohort and 0.51 (95% CI 0.34–0.75) in the validation microarray cohort, with no significant treatment-related survival difference in signature-negative patients. The signature does not line up with the four established ovarian cancer molecular subtypes, and the authors connect it to CTCFL/BORIS-driven acquisition of cancer stemness, a state linked to angiogenesis and treatment resistance.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the statistical adjustments for age, tumor stage, and residual tumor fully remove the differences between patients who did and did not receive bevacizumab, so the observed survival benefit in signature-positive patients is caused by the drug rather than by unmeasured clinical factors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In patients whose tumors overexpress bicluster 84, adding bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy is associated with roughly half the risk of death during follow-up in both cohorts (HR 0.41 and 0.51).
  • Signature-negative patients show no significant overall-survival difference between treatment groups, so the test could identify patients unlikely to benefit and avoid unnecessary bevacizumab exposure.
  • The signature is independent of the four established ovarian cancer molecular subtypes, so it adds information beyond current tumor classification.
  • If the CTCFL/stemness interpretation holds, the same biology could guide other anti-angiogenic or stemness-directed therapies, and CTCFL itself becomes a potential therapy target.
  • Several other reproducible expression biclusters (70, 90, 109, 130) are reported as candidate biomarkers awaiting validation in additional RNA-seq cohorts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial extension: a randomized trial with archived tumor RNA would be the decisive test, since the non-randomized comparison in the discovery cohort leaves confounding by indication as an alternative explanation.
  • Editorial extension: if the signature marks CTCFL-driven stemness, it may predict benefit from other anti-angiogenic agents or from therapies aimed at cancer stem cells, not only bevacizumab.
  • Editorial extension: because the validation cohort was microarray-based and lacked three of the five bicluster genes originally identified, a dedicated RNA-seq validation could either strengthen the observed effect or reveal platform-specific artifacts.
  • Editorial extension: combining bicluster 84 with other reproducible signatures, such as the angiogenesis-related one, might yield a more complete predictor than any single signature.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. Olga Zolotareva and colleagues generate a new RNA-seq cohort of ovarian cancer patients (UKE, n=181 with survival data) and combine it with the published DASL cohort (n=377) to search for transcriptomic signatures that identify patients who benefit from bevacizumab added to platinum-based chemotherapy. Using UnPaSt biclustering, they identify 234 biclusters in the UKE cohort, retain 23 that are detectable in DASL, and use random survival forest permutation importance to prioritize candidate signatures. One signature, bicluster 84 (five genes in UKE, two measurable in DASL), shows a large survival benefit from bevacizumab in signature-positive patients in both cohorts (UKE HR=0.41, DASL HR=0.51) but no significant benefit in signature-negative patients. The authors also show that the signature is associated with a set of 14 differentially expressed genes across three cohorts and propose a CTCFL-driven stemness mechanism. The central claim is that bicluster 84 is a predictive biomarker of bevacizumab response.

Significance. A validated predictive biomarker for bevacizumab in ovarian cancer would be of substantial clinical value, because current guidelines do not specify which patients should receive maintenance bevacizumab and the drug has meaningful toxicity. The paper contributes a novel, publicly available RNA-seq dataset and a reproducible computational pipeline with code, and it is commendable that the authors report the non-significant interaction p-values in Table 4 and acknowledge the limited cohort size. However, the study as presented is hypothesis-generating rather than confirmatory: the interaction between treatment and signature, which is the appropriate test of predictive value, does not reach significance in the discovery cohort and is only borderline in the validation cohort after adjustment. Moreover, as detailed below, the DASL cohort is not an independent validation set because it was used to filter biclusters and to compute feature importances that prioritized bicluster 84. If the authors reframe the claims accordingly and provide a non-circular validation strategy, the dataset and signature would be a useful contribution to the biomarker literature.

major comments (4)
  1. [Random forest prioritizes predictive bicluster candidates; Methods, Replication of biclusters] The manuscript's central claim that bicluster 84 is validated in the independent DASL cohort is undermined by the fact that DASL data were used twice before the validation test. In 'Unsupervised patient stratification', the 23 candidate biclusters are defined as those 'presenting in both UKE and DASL cohorts' (i.e., DASL is used to filter the 234 UnPaSt biclusters). In 'Random forest prioritizes predictive bicluster candidates', permutation-based feature importances in Table 3 are computed 'when the corresponding feature column in the validation dataset was permuted', so DASL survival outcomes directly influence which bicluster (84) is selected. The Cox interaction p-value for DASL in Table 4 (adj.p=0.07) is therefore an in-sample statistic, not an independent replication. No adjustment is made for selection among 23 candidates, let alone the original 234 biclusters. The authors should either pre-specify the signature using UKE data alone and then test it in DASL without any DASL-informed filtering, or clearly label the DASL analysis as a second discovery/prioritization step and seek a genuinely independent cohort for validation.
  2. [Table 4; Methods, Statistical analysis] The appropriate statistical test for a predictive biomarker is the treatment-by-biomarker interaction in a Cox model. In the UKE discovery cohort this interaction is not significant even before multiple-testing correction (p=0.069, adjusted p=0.23), and in the DASL cohort it is only borderline after adjustment (adj.p=0.07). The headline hazard ratios (UKE HR=0.41, DASL HR=0.51) are obtained from stratified analyses restricted to signature-positive patients. Such subgroup comparisons are not a sufficient basis for a predictive claim, because the null hypothesis of no interaction is not rejected; the observed effect in one stratum could be due to chance or to confounding. The manuscript should report the interaction test as the pre-specified primary analysis, include the full cross-tabulation of events by treatment and signature, and temper the conclusion to say that the signature is a candidate that requires confirmatory testing.
  3. [Table 1; Results, The UKE ovarian cancer RNA-Seq cohort] The UKE cohort is non-randomized, and Table 1 shows imbalances in prognostic factors: the bevacizumab-treated group contains more FIGO stage III/IV tumors, more high-grade tumors, and more patients with residual tumor ≥1cm. Although the Cox models adjust for age, tumor stage, and surgery outcome, these adjustments cannot fully eliminate confounding by indication; unmeasured factors (e.g., performance status, comorbidities, center-specific treatment policies) could explain part or all of the observed survival difference between treatment groups in signature-positive patients. The authors should explicitly acknowledge this limitation and, if possible, perform sensitivity analyses such as E-values or propensity-score weighting to assess the robustness of the stratified HR to unmeasured confounding.
  4. [Bicluster 84 signature replicates across datasets and platforms] The DASL array measures only two of the five bicluster 84 genes (SLCO6A1 and PTH2R); the other three members are absent. The DASL 'replication' therefore tests a two-gene proxy, not the full five-gene signature. Stratifying patients by a k-means split on two genes may not recapitulate the biological state defined by the UKE signature. This discrepancy should be stated as a major caveat in the interpretation of the DASL results, and the authors should avoid the phrase 'replicates across datasets and platforms' when the signature content is not identical.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methods, Expression data] The GEO accession number for the UKE dataset is given as 'XXXXXX'; this must be replaced with a valid accession before publication.
  2. [Methods, Biclustering for unsupervised patient stratification] The term 'SRN' appears to be a typo for 'SNR' (signal-to-noise ratio); also, 'rare patients subgroups' should be 'rare patient subgroups'.
  3. [Throughout] Please standardize the notation for adjusted p-values: both 'adj.p-value' and 'adjusted p-value' are used in the abstract, main text, and tables.
  4. [Impact of platform on reproducibility of expression signatures] The conclusion that higher UKE–TCGA-OV concordance is 'likely due to both cohorts being profiled using RNA-seq technology' is speculative, since cohort composition and platform are confounded; consider softening this claim.
  5. [Supplementary Figure S1 caption] The caption reports that all adjusted p-values exceeded 0.93 for UKE and 0.09 for DASL; it would be helpful to also state the number of genes tested and the minimum unadjusted p-value for context.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

DASL is used for bicluster filtering and random-forest feature selection, so the DASL 'validation' of bicluster 84 is partly in-sample, not an independent confirmation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Results, 'Random forest prioritizes predictive bicluster candidates' (Table 3 caption; Methods, 'Random survival forest')]
    "Permutation-based feature importance is calculated as the average decrease of random survival forest model performance when the corresponding feature column in the validation dataset was permuted."

    The random survival forest models are trained on UKE and validated on DASL data, so the 'validation dataset' used for permutation importances is DASL. Before that, the 234 UnPaSt biclusters were filtered to 23 that are 'presenting in both UKE and DASL cohorts'. The importances determine prioritization: the text reports 'Out of 23 tested biclusters, only five had positive importance for OS' in the bevacizumab-treated group, and later 'Bicluster 84 represented the most promising predictive biomarker candidate for the OS under bevacizumab treatment compared to the standard treatment in both cohorts (Table 4)'. The DASL Cox interaction and stratified HR=0.51 are computed on the same DASL data that supplied the feature importances.

full rationale

The central derivation is not entirely circular: biclusters are discovered by UnPaSt on UKE expression data alone, and the survival association in the UKE cohort is a within-cohort finding, not a self-defined identity. The biological interpretation via CTCFL/stemness is generated after the fact through CORESH text mining and is not used to construct the survival result. However, the paper's strongest claim of confirmation in 'both cohorts' depends on treating DASL as a validation set, while DASL is actually used twice before the final Cox analysis: first to filter the 234 UnPaSt biclusters down to 23, and then to compute permutation-based random-forest feature importances that prioritize bicluster 84. The DASL hazard ratio and p-values are therefore not an independent confirmation of a pre-specified signature. No load-bearing self-citation circularity is present: the UnPaSt citation is to the method's own developers, but the method is unsupervised and does not encode the survival result.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or biological entities. Its load-bearing assumptions are statistical exchangeability of non-randomized treatment groups, cross-platform transferability of a two-gene proxy signature, and the usual survival-model assumptions. The main free parameters are the bicluster filtering and replication thresholds, which are chosen rather than derived.

free parameters (3)
  • UnPaSt bicluster filtering thresholds = SNR > 1.5; at least 2 genes; at least 10 samples
    Hand-chosen cutoffs determine which of the 234 biclusters are considered for further analysis. Changing these thresholds could alter the candidate list and the final signature.
  • Replication gene retention threshold = SNR < 0.5 genes removed; at least 2 genes retained
    Used to declare a bicluster 'replicated' in DASL and TCGA-OV. This directly affects whether bicluster 84 is considered validated.
  • Random survival forest hyperparameters = chosen by grid search with 5-fold cross-validation
    The feature importances that prioritized bicluster 84 depend on these settings, which are not given in full detail in the manuscript.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Cox proportional hazards assumption: hazard ratios are constant over time.
    All survival comparisons rely on Cox models and proportional hazards without reporting a test of the assumption.
  • domain assumption Observational treatment groups are exchangeable after adjustment for age, stage, and residual tumor.
    Bevacizumab assignment in the UKE cohort is non-random and the groups differ at baseline (Table 1). The paper assumes no unmeasured confounding by indication.
  • domain assumption The two genes SLCO6A1 and PTH2R measured in DASL capture the information in the full five-gene bicluster 84 signature.
    Only these two of the five bicluster genes are available in the microarray validation data; the authors assume the two-gene k-means split reproduces the same biological subgroup.
  • standard math K-means clustering with two clusters on a small gene set gives a meaningful replication of a previously found bicluster.
    The replication procedure uses unsupervised k-means and then removes low-SNR genes, which is an ad hoc method for transferring a signature across platforms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Transcriptome signature for the identification of bevacizumab responders in ovarian cancer." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ICDIMADE

@misc{pith2026250104869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Transcriptome signature for the identification of bevacizumab responders in ovarian cancer},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ICDIMADE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04869}
}
read the original abstract

The standard of care for ovarian cancer comprises cytoreductive surgery, followed by adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy plus taxane therapy and maintenance therapy with the antiangiogenic compound bevacizumab and/or a PARP inhibitor. Nevertheless, there is currently no clear clinical indication for the use of bevacizumab, highlighting the urgent need for biomarkers to assess the response to bevacizumab. In the present study, based on a novel RNA-seq dataset (n=181) and a previously published microarray-based dataset (n=377), we have identified an expression signature potentially associated with benefit from bevacizumab addition and assumed to reflect cancer stemness acquisition driven by activation of CTCFL. Patients with this signature demonstrated improved overall survival when bevacizumab was added to standard chemotherapy in both novel (HR=0.41(0.23-0.74), adj.p-value=7.70e-03) and previously published cohorts (HR=0.51(0.34-0.75), adj.p-value=3.25e-03), while no significant differences in survival explained by treatment were observed in patients negative for this signature. In addition to the CTCFL signature, we found several other reproducible expression signatures which may also represent biomarker candidates not related to established molecular subtypes of ovarian cancer and require further validation studies based on additional RNA-seq data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Webb, P. M. & Jordan, S. J. Global epidemiology of epithelial ovarian cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 21 , 389–400 (2024)

    2024

  2. [2]

    Ledermann, J. A. et al. ESGO-ESMO-ESP consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology and early, advanced and recurrent disease. Ann Oncol 35 , 248–266 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    A., Lheureux, S

    Konstantinopoulos, P. A., Lheureux, S. & Moore, K. N. PARP Inhibitors for Ovarian Cancer: Current Indications, Future Combinations, and Novel Assets in Development to Target DNA Damage Repair. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 40 , 1–16 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Burger, R. A. et al. Incorporation of bevacizumab in the primary treatment of ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 365 , 2473–2483 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    & Singh, H

    Garcia, A. & Singh, H. Bevacizumab and ovarian cancer. Ther Adv Med Oncol 5 , 133–141 (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    Perren, T. J. et al. A phase 3 trial of bevacizumab in ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med 365 , 2484–2496 (2011)

    2011

  7. [7]

    Collinson, F. et al. Predicting response to bevacizumab in ovarian cancer: a panel of potential biomarkers informing treatment selection. Clin. Cancer Res. 19 , 5227–5239 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Backen, A. et al. The combination of circulating Ang1 and Tie2 levels predicts progression-free survival advantage in bevacizumab-treated patients with ovarian cancer. Clin Cancer Res 20 , 4549–4558 (2014)

    2014

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Ding, Y. et al. VEGF-C serum level is associated with response to bevacizumab maintenance therapy in primary ovarian cancer patients. PLoS One 17 , e0269680 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Komatsu, H. et al. Serum Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-A as a Prognostic Biomarker for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 27 , 1325–1332 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    Boisen, M. K. et al. The Prognostic Value of Plasma YKL-40 in Patients With Chemotherapy-Resistant Ovarian Cancer Treated With Bevacizumab. Int J Gynecol Cancer 26 , 1390–1398 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Tewari, K. S. et al. Final Overall Survival of a Randomized Trial of Bevacizumab for Primary Treatment of Ovarian Cancer. J Clin Oncol 37 , 2317–2328 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Bais, C. et al. Tumor Microvessel Density as a Potential Predictive Marker for Bevacizumab Benefit: GOG-0218 Biomarker Analyses. J Natl Cancer Inst 109 , (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    Wimberger, P. et al. Bevacizumab May Differentially Improve Prognosis of Advanced Ovarian Cancer Patients with Low Expression of VEGF-A165b, an Antiangiogenic VEGF-A Splice Variant. Clin Cancer Res 28 , 4660–4668 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    Morgan, R. D. et al. c-MET/VEGFR-2 co-localisation impacts on survival following bevacizumab therapy in epithelial ovarian cancer: an exploratory biomarker study of the phase 3 ICON7 trial. BMC Med 20 , 59 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Volk, A. et al. Ang-2 is a potential molecular marker for lymphatic metastasis and better response to bevacizumab therapy in ovarian cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 149 , 15957–15967 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Kommoss, S. et al. Bevacizumab May Differentially Improve Ovarian Cancer Outcome in Patients with Proliferative and Mesenchymal Molecular Subtypes. Clin. Cancer Res. 23 , 3794–3801 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Califano, D. et al. Evaluation of Angiogenesis-Related Genes as Prognostic Biomarkers of Bevacizumab Treated Ovarian Cancer Patients: Results from the Phase IV MITO16A/ManGO OV-2 Translational Study. Cancers (Basel) 13 , (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Chen, G. M. et al. Consensus on Molecular Subtypes of High-Grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 24 , 5037–5047 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Konecny, G. E. et al. Prognostic and therapeutic relevance of molecular subtypes in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 106 , (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Verhaak, R. G. W. et al. Prognostically relevant gene signatures of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. J. Clin. Invest. 123 , 517–525 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Helland, Å. et al. Deregulation of MYCN, LIN28B and LET7 in a molecular subtype of aggressive high-grade serous ovarian cancers. PLoS One 6 , e18064 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma

    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 474 , 609–615 (2011)

    2011

  16. [24]

    Talhouk, A. et al. Development and Validation of the Gene Expression Predictor of High-grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma Molecular SubTYPE (PrOTYPE). Clin. Cancer Res. 26 , 5411–5423 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Hartung, M. et al. UnPaSt: unsupervised patient stratification by differentially expressed biclusters in omics data. (2024) doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2408.00200

    2024 doi

  18. [26]

    & Usdin, T

    Dobolyi, A., Ueda, H., Uchida, H., Palkovits, M. & Usdin, T. B. Anatomical and physiological evidence for involvement of tuberoinfundibular peptide of 39 residues in nociception. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99 , 1651–1656 (2002)

    2002

  19. [27]

    Varga, T. et al. Paralemniscal TIP39 is induced in rat dams and may participate in maternal functions. Brain Struct Funct 217 , 323–335 (2012)

    2012

  20. [28]

    Wang, X. et al. Molecular insights into differentiated ligand recognition of the human parathyroid hormone receptor 2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 118 , (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Wilgus, T. A. New Mechanisms of ECM Production during Wound Healing: A Role for Parathyroid Hormone 2 Receptor Signaling. J Invest Dermatol 137 , 1617–1619 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Rian, E. et al. Parathyroid hormone-related protein is produced by cultured endothelial cells: a possible role in angiogenesis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 198 , 740–747 (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    Aversi-Ferreira, R. A. G. M. F. et al. Anatomical analysis of thumb opponency movement in the capuchin monkey (Sapajus sp). PLoS One 9 , e87288 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    & Lili, F

    Xiaowei, W., Tong, L., Yanjun, Q. & Lili, F. PTH2R is related to cell proliferation and migration in ovarian cancer: a multi-omics analysis of bioinformatics and experiments. Cancer Cell Int 22 , 148 (2022)

    2022

  25. [33]

    Brenner, S. et al. Specific expression of OATPs in primary small cell lung cancer (SCLC) cells as novel biomarkers for diagnosis and therapy. Cancer Lett 356 , 517–524 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Fang, Z. et al. Silencing LINC00491 Inhibits Pancreatic Cancer Progression through MiR-188-5p-induced Inhibition of ZFP91. J Cancer 13 , 1808–1819 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    & Guo, Z

    Wan, H., Lin, T., Shan, M., Lu, J. & Guo, Z. LINC00491 Facilitates Tumor Progression of Lung Adenocarcinoma via Wnt/ β- Catenin-Signaling Pathway by Regulating MTSS1 Ubiquitination. Cells 11 , (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    & Dehghani, H

    Soltanian, S. & Dehghani, H. BORIS: a key regulator of cancer stemness. Cancer Cell Int 18 , 154 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    & Benhattar, J

    Alberti, L., Renaud, S., Losi, L., Leyvraz, S. & Benhattar, J. High expression of hTERT and stemness genes in BORIS/CTCFL positive cells isolated from embryonic cancer cells. PLoS One 9 , e109921 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Hillman, J. C. et al. Expression in Ovarian Cancer Precursor Cells Alters the CTCF Cistrome and Enhances Invasiveness through. Mol Cancer Res 17 , 2051–2062 (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    Pugacheva, E. M. et al. Comparative analyses of CTCF and BORIS occupancies uncover two distinct classes of CTCF binding genomic regions. Genome Biol 16 , 161 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    Pugacheva, E. M. et al. BORIS/CTCFL epigenetically reprograms clustered CTCF binding sites into alternative transcriptional start sites. Genome Biol 25 , 40 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Debaugny, R. E. & Skok, J. A. CTCF and CTCFL in cancer. Curr Opin Genet Dev 61 , 44–52 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    & Soto-Reyes, E

    Salgado-Albarrán, M., Späth, J., González-Barrios, R., Baumbach, J. & Soto-Reyes, E. CTCFL regulates the PI3K-Akt pathway and it is a target for personalized ovarian cancer therapy. NPJ Syst Biol Appl 8 , 5 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    Debruyne, D. N. et al. BORIS promotes chromatin regulatory interactions in treatment-resistant cancer cells. Nature 572 , 676–680 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Tothill, R. W. et al. Novel molecular subtypes of serous and endometrioid ovarian cancer linked to clinical outcome. Clin Cancer Res 14 , 5198–5208 (2008)

    2008

  37. [45]

    Heilig, J. et al. Collagen IX deficiency leads to premature vascularization and ossification of murine femoral heads through an imbalance of pro- and antiangiogenic factors. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 28 , 988–999 (2020)

    2020

  38. [46]

    Chen, J. et al. SPINK5 inhibits esophageal squamous cell carcinoma metastasis via immune activity. J Gene Med 26 , e3667 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Chen, P., Bi, F., Tan, W., Jian, L. & Yu, X. A novel immune-related model to predict prognosis and responsiveness to checkpoint and angiogenesis blockade therapy in advanced renal cancer. Front Oncol 13 , 1127448 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Song, M. et al. Angiogenic role for glycodelin in tumorigenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98 , 9265–9270 (2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    Scholz, C. et al. Glycodelin A is a prognostic marker to predict poor outcome in advanced stage ovarian cancer patients. BMC Res Notes 5 , 551 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    Pan, Y. et al. Role of Cancer Side Population Stem Cells in Ovarian Cancer Angiogenesis. Med Princ Pract 33 , 403–413 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    Chu, X. et al. Cancer stem cells: advances in knowledge and implications for cancer therapy. Signal Transduct Target Ther 9 , 170 (2024)

    2024

  44. [52]

    Clayton, Z. E. et al. Induced pluripotent stem cell-derived endothelial cells promote angiogenesis and accelerate wound closure in a murine excisional wound healing model. Biosci Rep 38 , (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Krishnapriya, S. et al. Cancer stem cells contribute to angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in serous adenocarcinoma of the ovary. Angiogenesis 22 , 441–455 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Bentink, S. et al. Angiogenic mRNA and microRNA gene expression signature predicts a novel subtype of serous ovarian cancer. PLoS One 7 , e30269 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Haibe, Y. et al. Resistance Mechanisms to Anti-angiogenic Therapies in Cancer. Front Oncol 10 , 221 (2020)

    2020

  48. [56]

    & Helfrich, I

    Stockmann, C., Schadendorf, D., Klose, R. & Helfrich, I. The impact of the immune system on tumor: angiogenesis and vascular remodeling. Front Oncol 4 , 69 (2014)

    2014

  49. [57]

    Dawson, D. W. et al. CD36 mediates the In vitro inhibitory effects of thrombospondin-1 on endothelial cells. J. Cell Biol. 138 , 707–717 (1997)

    1997

  50. [58]

    Silverstein, R. L. & Febbraio, M. CD36, a scavenger receptor involved in immunity, metabolism, angiogenesis, and behavior. Sci Signal 2 , re3 (2009)

    2009

  51. [59]

    Targeting CTCFL/BORIS for the immunotherapy of cancer

    Loukinov, D. Targeting CTCFL/BORIS for the immunotherapy of cancer. Cancer Immunol Immunother 67 , 1955–1965 (2018)

    2018

  52. [60]

    van Amerongen, R. A. et al. PRAME and CTCFL-reactive TCRs for the treatment of ovarian cancer. Front Immunol 14 , 1121973 (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Oza, A. et al. Progression-free survival in advanced ovarian cancer: a Canadian review and expert panel perspective. Curr. Oncol. 18 , (2011)

    2011

  54. [62]

    Kuerti, S. et al. VEGF-C expression attributes the risk for lymphatic metastases to ovarian cancer patients. Oncotarget 8 , 43218–43227 (2017)

    2017

  55. [63]

    Brauneck, F. et al. Immunosuppressive M2 TAMs represent a promising target population to enhance phagocytosis of ovarian cancer cells. Front Immunol 14 , 1250258 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    Chen, S., Zhou, Y., Chen, Y. & Gu, J. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics 34 , i884–i890 (2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    Dobin, A. et al. STAR: ultrafast universal RNA-seq aligner. Bioinformatics 29 , 15–21 (2013)

    2013

  58. [66]

    & Huber, W

    Anders, S. & Huber, W. Differential expression analysis for sequence count data. Genome Biol 11 , R106 (2010)

    2010

  59. [67]

    I., Huber, W

    Love, M. I., Huber, W. & Anders, S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 15 , 550 (2014)

    2014

  60. [68]

    Goldman, M. J. et al. Visualizing and interpreting cancer genomics data via the Xena platform. Nat. Biotechnol. 38 , 675–678 (2020)

    2020

  61. [69]

    Barrett, T. et al. NCBI GEO: archive for functional genomics data sets--update. Nucleic Acids Res 41 , D991–5 (2013)

    2013

  62. [70]

    B., Blackstone, E

    Ishwaran, H., Kogalur, U. B., Blackstone, E. H. & Lauer, M. S. Random survival forests. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2 , 841–860 (2008)

    2008

  63. [71]

    scikit-survival: A Library for Time-to-Event Analysis Built on Top of scikit-learn

    Pölsterl, S. scikit-survival: A Library for Time-to-Event Analysis Built on Top of scikit-learn. Journal of Machine Learning Research 21 , 1–6 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    Random Forests

    Breiman, L. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45 , 5–32 (2001)

    2001

  65. [73]

    lifelines: survival analysis in Python

    Davidson-Pilon, C. lifelines: survival analysis in Python. J. Open Source Softw. 4 , 1317 (2019)

    2019

  66. [74]

    Ritchie, M. E. et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 43 , e47 (2015)

    2015

  67. [75]

    & Peltz, G

    Fang, Z., Liu, X. & Peltz, G. GSEApy: a comprehensive package for performing gene set enrichment analysis in Python. Bioinformatics 39 , (2023)

    2023

  68. [76]

    Ashburner, M. et al. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat. Genet. 25 , 25–29 (2000)

    2000

  69. [77]

    The Gene Ontology knowledgebase in 2023

    Gene Ontology Consortium et al. The Gene Ontology knowledgebase in 2023. Genetics 224 , (2023)

    2023

  70. [78]

    Milacic, M. et al. The Reactome Pathway Knowledgebase 2024. Nucleic Acids Res. 52 , D672–D678 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    Schriml, L. M. et al. Human Disease Ontology 2018 update: classification, content and workflow expansion. Nucleic Acids Res. 47 , D955–D962 (2019)

    2019

  72. [80]

    & Ishiguro-Watanabe, M

    Kanehisa, M., Furumichi, M., Sato, Y., Kawashima, M. & Ishiguro-Watanabe, M. KEGG for taxonomy-based analysis of pathways and genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 51 , D587–D592 (2023)

    2023

  73. [81]

    Agrawal, A. et al. WikiPathways 2024: next generation pathway database. Nucleic Acids Res 52 , D679–D689 (2024)

    2024

  74. [82]

    The GTEx Consortium atlas of genetic regulatory effects across human tissues

    GTEx Consortium. The GTEx Consortium atlas of genetic regulatory effects across human tissues. Science 369 , 1318–1330 (2020)

    2020

  75. [83]

    Cao, J. et al. A human cell atlas of fetal gene expression. Science 370 , (2020)

    2020

  76. [84]

    Hu, C. et al. CellMarker 2.0: an updated database of manually curated cell markers in human/mouse and web tools based on scRNA-seq data. Nucleic Acids Res. 51 , D870–D876 (2023)

    2023

  77. [85]

    The Tabula Sapiens: A multiple-organ, single-cell transcriptomic atlas of humans

    Tabula Sapiens Consortium* et al. The Tabula Sapiens: A multiple-organ, single-cell transcriptomic atlas of humans. Science 376 , eabl4896 (2022)

    2022

  78. [86]

    Chen, E. Y. et al. Enrichr: interactive and collaborative HTML5 gene list enrichment analysis tool. BMC Bioinformatics 14 , 128 (2013)

    2013

  79. [87]

    & Hochberg, Y

    Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol. 57 , 289–300 (1995)

    1995

  80. [88]

    Mehrotra, P. et al. Oxylipins and metabolites from pyroptotic cells act as promoters of tissue repair. Nature 631 , 207–215 (2024)

    2024

  81. [89]

    Clough, E. et al. NCBI GEO: archive for gene expression and epigenomics data sets: 23-year update. Nucleic Acids Res 52 , D138–D144 (2024)

    2024

  82. [90]

    Lachmann, A. et al. Massive mining of publicly available RNA-seq data from human and mouse. Nat Commun 9 , 1366 (2018)

    2018

  83. [91]

    & El-Osta, A

    Ziemann, M., Kaspi, A. & El-Osta, A. Digital expression explorer 2: a repository of uniformly processed RNA sequencing data. Gigascience 8 , (2019)

    2019

  84. [92]

    Korotkevich, G. et al. Fast gene set enrichment analysis. bioRxiv (2016) doi:10.1101/060012. Supplementary Figures a b c d Supplementary Figure S1. Predictive values of individual gene expressions for overall survival (OS; a,c ) and recurrence-free survival (RFS; b,d ) in the ...

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.