Identification of potential crucial genes in atrial fibrillation: a bioinformatic analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is at least partially heritable, affecting 2-3% of the population in Europe and the USA. However, a substantial proportion of heritability is still lacking. In the present study, we aim to identify potential crucial genes associated with AF through bioinformatic analyses of public datasets. METHODS: Microarray data sets of GSE115574, GSE31821, GSE79768, GSE41177 and GSE14975 from the Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database were retrieved. After merging all microarray data and adjusting batch effect, differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified. Functional enrichment analyses based on Gene Ontology (GO) resource, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) resource, Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA), Reactome Pathway Database and Disease Ontology (DO) were carried out. Protein-protein interaction (PPI) network was constructed using the STRING database. Combined with aforementioned significant bioinformatics information, potential crucial genes were subsequently selected. The comparative toxicogenomics database (CTD) was used to explore the interaction between potential crucial genes and AF. RESULT: We identified 27 of DEGs with gene expression fold change (FC) ≥ 1.5 or ≤ 2/3 (|log2 FC| ≥ 0.58) and 5 with FC ≥ 2 or ≤ 0.5 (|log2 FC| ≥ 1) of AF patients compared with sinus rhythm controls. The most significantly enriched pathway was regulation of insulin-like growth factor transport and uptake by insulin-like growth factor binding proteins. IGFBP2, C1orf105, FHL2, CHGB, ATP1B4, IGFBP3, SLC26A9, CXCR4 and HTR2B were considered the potential crucial genes. CTD showed CXCR4, IGFBP2, IGFBP3 and FHL2 had higher scores with AF. CONCLUSIONS: The 9 potential crucial genes, especially CXCR4, IGFBP2, IGFBP3 and FHL2, may be associated with risk of AF. Our study provided new insights of AF into genetics, molecular pathogenesis and new therapeutic targets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".