4.6 Article

A Predictive Phosphorylation Signature of Lung Cancer

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 4, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007994

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Human Genome Research Institute [R01 HG003367-01A1]
  2. American Lung Association [RG-52430-N]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Aberrant activation of signaling pathways drives many of the fundamental biological processes that accompany tumor initiation and progression. Inappropriate phosphorylation of intermediates in these signaling pathways are a frequently observed molecular lesion that accompanies the undesirable activation or repression of pro- and antioncogenic pathways. Therefore, methods which directly query signaling pathway activation via phosphorylation assays in individual cancer biopsies are expected to provide important insights into the molecular logic'' that distinguishes cancer and normal tissue on one hand, and enables personalized intervention strategies on the other. Results: We first document the largest available set of tyrosine phosphorylation sites that are, individually, differentially phosphorylated in lung cancer, thus providing an immediate set of drug targets. Next, we develop a novel computational methodology to identify pathways whose phosphorylation activity is strongly correlated with the lung cancer phenotype. Finally, we demonstrate the feasibility of classifying lung cancers based on multi-variate phosphorylation signatures. Conclusions: Highly predictive and biologically transparent phosphorylation signatures of lung cancer provide evidence for the existence of a robust set of phosphorylation mechanisms (captured by the signatures) present in the majority of lung cancers, and that reliably distinguish each lung cancer from normal. This approach should improve our understanding of cancer and help guide its treatment, since the phosphorylation signatures highlight proteins and pathways whose phosphorylation should be inhibited in order to prevent unregulated proliferation.

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