4.8 Article

Registered Report: COT drives resistance to RAF inhibition through MAP kinase pathway reactivation

期刊

ELIFE
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELIFE SCIENCES PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.11414

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Laura and John Arnold Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology seeks to address growing concerns about reproducibility in scientific research by conducting replications of selected experiments from a number of high-profile papers in the field of cancer biology. The papers, which were published between 2010 and 2012, were selected on the basis of citations and Altmetric scores (Errington et alg 2014). This Registered Report describes the proposed replication plan of key experiments from COT drives resistance to RAF inhibition through MAPK pathway reactivation by Johannessen and colleagues, published in Nature in 2010 (Johannessen et an, 2010). The key experiments to be replicated are those reported in Figures 3B, 3D-E, 31, and 4E-F. In Figures 3B, DE, RPMI-7951 and OUMS023 cells were reported to exhibit robust ERK/MEK activity concomitant with reduced growth sensitivity in the presence of the BRAF inhibitor PLX4720. MAP3K8 (COT/ TPL2) directly regulated MEK/ERK phosphorylation, as the treatment of RPMI-7951 cells with a MAP3K8 kinase inhibitor resulted in a dose-dependent suppression of MEK/ERK activity (Figure 31). In contrast, MAP3K8-deficient A375 cells remained sensitive to BRAF inhibition, exhibiting reduced growth and MEK/ERK activity during inhibitor treatment. To determine if RAF and MEK inhibitors together can overcome single-agent resistance, MAP3K8-expressing A375 cells treated with PLX4720 along with MEK inhibitors significantly inhibited both cell viability and ERK activation compared to treatment with PLX4720 alone, as reported in Figures 4E-F. The Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology is collaboration between the Center for Open Science and Science Exchange and the results of the replications will be published in eLife.

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

4.8
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