4.7 Article

In silico identification of drug target pathways in breast cancer subtypes using pathway cross-talk inhibition

期刊

JOURNAL OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12967-018-1535-2

关键词

Monte Carlo cross-validation; Pathway cross-talk inhibition; Breast cancer; Drugs; Classification; Subtypes

资金

  1. INTEROMICS flagship project
  2. National Research Council CUP [B91J12000190001]
  3. project grant SysBioNet, Italian Roadmap Research Infrastructures

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Despite great development in genome and proteome high-throughput methods, treatment failure is a critical point in the management of most solid cancers, including breast cancer (BC). Multiple alternative mechanisms upon drug treatment are involved to offset therapeutic effects, eventually causing drug resistance or treatment failure. Methods: Here, we optimized a computational method to discover novel drug target pathways in cancer subtypes using pathway cross-talk inhibition (PCI). The in silico method is based on the detection and quantification of the pathway cross-talk for distinct cancer subtypes. From a BC data set of The Cancer Genome Atlas, we have identified different networks of cross-talking pathways for different BC subtypes, validated using an independent BC dataset from Gene Expression Omnibus. Then, we predicted in silico the effects of new or approved drugs on different BC subtypes by silencing individual or combined subtype-derived pathways with the aim to find new potential drugs or more effective synergistic combinations of drugs. Results: Overall, we identified a set of new potential drug target pathways for distinct BC subtypes on which therapeutic agents could synergically act showing antitumour effects and impacting on cross-talk inhibition. Conclusions: We believe that in silico methods based on PCI could offer valuable approaches to identifying more tailored and effective treatments in particular in heterogeneous cancer diseases.

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