Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2017;2(15):e92142. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.92142.
Abstract
The molecular bases for sex differences in cancer remain undefined and how to incorporate them into risk stratification remains undetermined. Given sex differences in metabolism and the inverse correlation between fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake and survival, we hypothesized that glycolytic phenotyping would improve glioma subtyping. Using retrospectively acquired lower-grade glioma (LGG) transcriptome data from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), we discovered male-specific decreased survival resulting from glycolytic gene overexpression. Patients within this high-glycolytic group showed significant differences in the presence of key genomic alterations (i.e., 1p/19q codeletion, CIC, EGFR, NF1, PTEN, FUBP1, and IDH mutations) compared with the low-glycolytic group. Although glycolytic stratification defined poor prognostic males independent of grade, histology, TP53, and ATRX mutation status, we unexpectedly found that females with high-glycolytic gene expression and wild-type IDH survived longer than all other wild-type patients. Validation with an independent metabolomics dataset from grade 2 gliomas determined that glycolytic metabolites selectively stratified males and also uncovered a potential sexual dimorphism in pyruvate metabolism. These findings identify a potential synergy between patient sex, tumor metabolism, and genomic alterations in determining outcome for glioma patients.
Authors
Joseph E. Ippolito, Aldrin Kay-Yuen Yim, Jingqin Luo, Prakash Chinnaiyan, Joshua B. Rubin
Usage data is cumulative from February 2022 through February 2023.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 845 | 515 |
| 64 | 52 | |
| Figure | 166 | 1 |
| Supplemental data | 24 | 1 |
| Citation downloads | 40 | 0 |
| Totals | 1,139 | 569 |
| Total Views | 1,708 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
