4.7 Article

Phosphosignature Predicts Dasatinib Response in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

期刊

MOLECULAR & CELLULAR PROTEOMICS
卷 11, 期 9, 页码 651-668

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/mcp.M111.016410

关键词

-

资金

  1. Federal German Ministry of Education and Research [0315011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Targeted drugs are less toxic than traditional chemotherapeutic therapies; however, the proportion of patients that benefit from these drugs is often smaller. A marker that confidently predicts patient response to a specific therapy would allow an individual therapy selection most likely to benefit the patient. Here, we used quantitative mass spectrometry to globally profile the basal phosphoproteome of a panel of non-small cell lung cancer cell lines. The effect of the kinase inhibitor dasatinib on cellular growth was tested against the same panel. From the phosphoproteome profiles, we identified 58 phosphorylation sites, which consistently differ between sensitive and resistant cell lines. Many of the corresponding proteins are involved in cell adhesion and cytoskeleton organization. We showed that a signature of only 12 phosphorylation sites is sufficient to accurately predict dasatinib sensitivity. Four of the phosphorylation sites belong to integrin beta 4, a protein that mediates cell-matrix or cell-cell adhesion. The signature was validated in cross-validation and label switch experiments and in six independently profiled breast cancer cell lines. The study supports that the phosphorylation of integrin beta 4, as well as eight further proteins comprising the signature, are candidate biomarkers for predicting response to dasatinib in solid tumors. Furthermore, our results show that identifying predictive phosphorylation signatures from global, quantitative phosphoproteomic data is possible and can open a new path to discovering molecular markers for response prediction. Molecular & Cellular Proteomics 11: 10.1074/mcp.M111.016410, 651-668, 2012.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据