4.8 Article

Proteogenomic integration reveals therapeutic targets in breast cancer xenografts

Journal

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1038/ncomms14864

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Cancer Institute [U24CA160035]
  2. Siteman Cancer Center grant (NCI) [P30 CA091842, U24CA160034, R01CA180006]
  3. National Human Genome Research Institute [U01HG006517]
  4. NCI Breast SPORE program [P50-CA58223-09A1, R01CA195754-01]
  5. Breast Cancer Research Foundation [CCR16380599]
  6. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited
  7. Brown Shoe's foundation
  8. Ministry of Education in Taiwan
  9. Lucille P. Markey Special Emphasis Pathway in Human Pathobiology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent advances in mass spectrometry (MS) have enabled extensive analysis of cancer proteomes. Here, we employed quantitative proteomics to profile protein expression across 24 breast cancer patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models. Integrated proteogenomic analysis shows positive correlation between expression measurements from transcriptomic and proteomic analyses; further, gene expression-based intrinsic subtypes are largely re-capitulated using non-stromal protein markers. Proteogenomic analysis also validates a number of predicted genomic targets in multiple receptor tyrosine kinases. However, several protein/phosphoprotein events such as overexpression of AKT proteins and ARAF, BRAF, HSP90AB1 phosphosites are not readily explainable by genomic analysis, suggesting that druggable translational and/or post-translational regulatory events may be uniquely diagnosed by MS. Drug treatment experiments targeting HER2 and components of the PI3K pathway supported proteogenomic response predictions in seven xenograft models. Our study demonstrates that MS-based proteomics can identify therapeutic targets and highlights the potential of PDX drug response evaluation to annotate MS-based pathway activities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available