4.6 Review

Insights from a Computational-Based Approach for Analyzing Autophagy Genes across Human Cancers

期刊

GENES
卷 14, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes14081550

关键词

systems biology; autophagy; cancer; cell phenotype; cancer dataset

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the past decade, there has been a significant increase in autophagy research due to its role in cancer progression and treatment resistance. This study used omics-based cancer datasets to identify autophagy genes as prognostic markers in cancer and explored their clinical significance. The findings emphasize the importance of innovative approaches in analyzing tumor heterogeneity and provide potential therapeutic targets.
In the last decade, there has been a boost in autophagy reports due to its role in cancer progression and its association with tumor resistance to treatment. Despite this, many questions remain to be elucidated and explored among the different tumors. Here, we used omics-based cancer datasets to identify autophagy genes as prognostic markers in cancer. We then combined these findings with independent studies to further characterize the clinical significance of these genes in cancer. Our observations highlight the importance of innovative approaches to analyze tumor heterogeneity, potentially affecting the expression of autophagy-related genes with either pro-tumoral or anti-tumoral functions. In silico analysis allowed for identifying three genes (TBC1D12, KERA, and TUBA3D) not previously described as associated with autophagy pathways in cancer. While autophagy-related genes were rarely mutated across human cancers, the expression profiles of these genes allowed the clustering of different cancers into three independent groups. We have also analyzed datasets highlighting the effects of drugs or regulatory RNAs on autophagy. Altogether, these data provide a comprehensive list of targets to further the understanding of autophagy mechanisms in cancer and investigate possible therapeutic targets.

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