4.7 Article

Landscape of drug-resistance mutations in kinase regulatory hotspots

期刊

BRIEFINGS IN BIOINFORMATICS
卷 22, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbaa108

关键词

mutation hotspot; kinase inhibitor; gatekeeper; G-loop; alpha C-helix; A-loop

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01LM012806, P30DA035778A1]
  2. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas [CPRIT RP180734, RP170668]
  3. Center for Research Computing of University of Pittsburgh

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study systematically investigated representative mutation hotspots associated with drug resistance in human protein kinases, revealing a landscape view of mutations and providing valuable knowledge for the development of more effective kinase inhibitors.
More than 48 kinase inhibitors (KIs) have been approved by Food and Drug Administration. However, drug-resistance (DR) eventually occurs, and secondary mutations have been found in the previously targeted primary-mutated cancer cells. Cancer and drug research communities recognize the importance of the kinase domain (KD) mutations for kinasopathies. So far, a systematic investigation of kinase mutations on DR hotspots has not been done yet. In this study, we systematically investigated four types of representative mutation hotspots (gatekeeper, G-loop, alpha C-helix and A-loop) associated with DR in 538 human protein kinases using large-scale cancer data sets (TCGA, ICGC, COSMIC and GDSC). Our results revealed 358 kinases harboring 3318 mutations that covered 702 drug resistance hotspot residues. Among them, 197 kinases had multiple genetic variants on each residue. We further computationally assessed and validated the epidermal growth factor receptor mutations on protein structure and drug-binding efficacy. This is the first study to provide a landscape view of DR-associated mutation hotspots in kinase's secondary structures, and its knowledge will help the development of effective next-generation KIs for better precision medicine.

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