4.8 Article

Influence of node abundance on signaling network state and dynamics analyzed by mass cytometry

期刊

NATURE BIOTECHNOLOGY
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 164-172

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nbt.3770

关键词

-

资金

  1. Bodenmiller laboratory
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) [316030-139220]
  3. SNSF Assistant Professorship [PP00P3-144874]
  4. Swiss Cancer League grant
  5. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP)/ERC [336921]
  6. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1650044]
  7. Institute of International Education
  8. Forschungskredit of the University of Zurich Fellowship [FK-74419-01-01]
  9. PhosphonetPPM SystenisX grant
  10. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [316030_139220] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Signaling networks are key regulators of cellular function. Although the concentrations of signaling proteins are perturbed in disease states, such as cancer, and are modulated by drug therapies, our understanding of how such changes shape the properties of signaling networks is limited. Here we couple mass-cytometry-based single-cell analysis with overexpression of tagged signaling proteins to study the dependence of signaling relationships and dynamics on protein node abundance. Focusing on the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) signaling network in HEK293T cells, we analyze 20 signaling proteins during a 1-h EGF stimulation time course using a panel of 35 antibodies. Data analysis with BP-R-2, a measure that quantifies complex signaling relationships, reveals abundance-dependent network states and identifies novel signaling relationships. Further, we show that upstream signaling proteins have abundance-dependent effects on downstream signaling dynamics. Our approach elucidates the influence of node abundance on signal transduction networks and will further our understanding of signaling in health and disease.

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