Genome Wide Expression Analysis of Middle Eastern Colorectal Cancer Reveals FOXM1 as a Novel Target for Cancer Therapy
In order to identify potential genes that may play an important role in progression of colorectal carcinoma, we screened and validated the global gene expression using cDNA expression array on 36 CRC tissues and compared with 24 non-cancerous colorectal tissue. We investigated the differential expression levels using cDNA microarray technique in a series of 35 CRC and 24 normal samples. FoxM1 was identified as one of the dysregulated genes and was significantly overexpressed in the tumor sample...
Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 48 papers in the literature. Roles are inferred factual signals (who deposited the data vs who reused it), with counts — never a judgement about any author.
- N6-methyladenosine-induced circ1662 promotes metastasis of color... 2021 · 165 cites
- MIR22HG acts as a tumor suppressor via TGFβ/SMAD signaling and f... 2020 · 105 cites
- Comprehensive investigation of a novel differentially expressed... 2017 · 100 cites
- Cell Cycle-Dependent Rho GTPase Activity Dynamically Regulates C... 2013 · 98 cites
- Comparative study on gene set and pathway topology-based enrichm... 2015 · 91 cites
- A novel genome‐wide in vivo screen for metastatic suppressors in... 2014 · 83 cites
- An integrative analysis reveals functional targets of GATA6 tran... 2013 · 81 cites
41 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
metadata only · no data-level QC for this typeStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained
No quantitative QC rubric exists for this data type yet, so it is deliberately left unscored — this is an honest "not applicable", not a poor rating.
measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0 · provisional — verify independently
Scientific quality
Based on hands-on reproduction of the papers that use this dataset. A reproducible paper that stands on this data is positive evidence; a flagged one is a prompt to look closer — never a verdict on the dataset itself without the evidence.