Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 10,938

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications

Open access
Sørlie, Therese, Perou, Charles M., Tibshirani, Robert, Aas, Turid, Geisler, Stephanie, Johnsen, Hilde, Hastie, Trevor, Eisen, Michael B., van de Rijn, Matt, Jeffrey, Stefanie S., Thorsen, Thor, Quist, Hanne, Matese, John C., Brown, Patrick O., Botstein, David, Lønning, Per Eystein, Børresen-Dale, Anne-Lise·2001·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.191367098
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to classify breast carcinomas based on variations in gene expression patterns derived from cDNA microarrays and to correlate tumor characteristics to clinical outcome. A total of 85 cDNA microarray experiments representing 78 cancers, three fibroadenomas, and four normal breast tissues were analyzed by hierarchical clustering. As reported previously, the cancers could be classified into a basal epithelial-like group, an ERBB2 -overexpressing group and a normal breast-like group based on variations in gene expression. A novel finding was that the previously characterized luminal epithelial/estrogen receptor-positive group could be divided into at least two subgroups, each with a distinctive expression profile. These subtypes proved to be reasonably robust by clustering using two different gene sets: first, a set of 456 cDNA clones previously selected to reflect intrinsic properties of the tumors and, second, a gene set that highly correlated with patient outcome. Survival analyses on a subcohort of patients with locally advanced breast cancer uniformly treated in a prospective study showed significantly different outcomes for the patients belonging to the various groups, including a poor prognosis for the basal-like subtype and a significant difference in outcome for the two estrogen receptor-positive groups.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.191367098

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. 10.1002/1097-0142(19930315)71:6 <2141::AID-CNCR2820711603>3.0.CO;2-F · doi:10.1002/1097-0142(19930315)71:6
  2. 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.x · DOI
  3. 10.1016/S0009-8981(97)06542-X · DOI
  4. 10.1002/1097-0142(19860315)57:6<1171::AID-CNCR2820570618>3.0.CO;2-X · DOI
  5. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690048 · DOI
  6. 10.1126/science.2470152 · DOI
  7. 10.1002/gcc.2870140113 · DOI
  8. 10.1038/nm1095-1029 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/0277-5379(88)90068-5 · DOI
  10. 10.1038/bjc.1983.101 · DOI
  11. 10.1038/35000501 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1056/NEJM200102223440801 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1126/science.286.5439.531 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1038/35021093 · DOI · Paper page
  15. S Geisler, P E Lonning, T Aas, H Johnsen, O Fluge, D F Haugan, J R Lillehaug, L A Akslen, A-L Børresen-Dale Cancer Res 61, 2505–2512 (2001).
  16. 10.1073/pnas.091062498 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1038/nm0796-811 · DOI · Paper page
  18. E M Berns, J A Foekens, R Vossen, M P Look, P Devilee, S C Henzen-Logmans, I L van Staveren, W L van Putten, M Inganas, M E Meijer-van Gelder, et al. Cancer Res 60, 2155–2162 (2000).
  19. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199605)179:1<31::AID-PATH523>3.0.CO;2-O · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Sørlie, T., Perou, C. M., Tibshirani, R., Aas, T., Geisler, S., Johnsen, H., Hastie, T., Eisen, M. B., van de Rijn, M., Jeffrey, S. S., Thorsen, T., Quist, H., Matese, J. C., Brown, P. O., Botstein, D., Lønning, P. E., & Børresen-Dale, A.-L.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2001-09-11
Volume
98
Issue
19
Pages
10869-10874
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.191367098
OpenAlex
W2131994307
Cited by
10,938
References
1
FWCI
59.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.