4.6 Article

Linear combinations of docking affinities explain quantitative differences in RTK signaling

期刊

MOLECULAR SYSTEMS BIOLOGY
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1038/msb.2008.72

关键词

partial least-squares regression; protein microarray; PTB domain; receptor tyrosine kinase; SH2 domain

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R33 CA128726, R21 CA126720]
  2. NSF Graduate Research Fellowship
  3. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Predoctoral Fellowship in the Biological Sciences
  4. NIH Molecular, Cellular, and Chemical Biology Training [5 T32 GM07598-25]
  5. Alfred and Isabel Bader fellowship
  6. Jacques-Emile Dubois fellowship
  7. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R21CA126720, R33CA128726] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [T32GM007598] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) process extracellular cues by activating a broad array of signaling proteins. Paradoxically, they often use the same proteins to elicit diverse and even opposing phenotypic responses. Binary, 'on-off' wiring diagrams are therefore inadequate to explain their differences. Here, we show that when six diverse RTKs are placed in the same cellular background, they activate many of the same proteins, but to different quantitative degrees. Additionally, we find that the relative phosphorylation levels of upstream signaling proteins can be accurately predicted using linear models that rely on combinations of receptor-docking affinities and that the docking sites for phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) and Shc1 provide much of the predictive information. In contrast, we find that the phosphorylation levels of downstream proteins cannot be predicted using linear models. Taken together, these results show that information processing by RTKs can be segmented into discrete upstream and downstream steps, suggesting that the challenging task of constructing mathematical models of RTK signaling can be parsed into separate and more manageable layers.

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

4.6
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