4.7 Article

Computational screen to identify potential targets for immunotherapeutic identification and removal of senescence cells

期刊

AGING CELL
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/acel.13809

关键词

antibody drug conjugates; bioinforatics; biomarkers; CAR T-cell therapy; neoantigens; omics integration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To identify potential targets for selective identification and removal of senescent cells, gene expression signatures of senescent cells were compared to normal human tissues and cell types. A gene set called SenoRanger, composed of 301 genes, was established based on consensus analysis. Pathway analysis confirmed the potential role of SenoRanger genes in aging and senescence-related processes. Overall, SenoRanger provides solid hypotheses for identifying and removing senescent cells.
To prioritize gene and protein candidates that may enable the selective identification and removal of senescent cells, we compared gene expression signatures from replicative senescent cells to transcriptomics and proteomics atlases of normal human tissues and cell types. RNA-seq samples from in vitro senescent cells (6 studies, 13 conditions) were analyzed for identifying targets at the gene and transcript levels that are highly expressed in senescent cells compared to their expression in normal human tissues and cell types. A gene set made of 301 genes called SenoRanger was established based on consensus analysis across studies and backgrounds. Of the identified senescence-associated targets, 29% of the genes in SenoRanger are also highly differentially expressed in aged tissues from GTEx. The SenoRanger gene set includes previously known as well as novel senescence-associated genes. Pathway analysis that connected the SenoRanger genes to their functional annotations confirms their potential role in several aging and senescence-related processes. Overall, SenoRanger provides solid hypotheses about potentially useful targets for identifying and removing senescence cells.

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