Literature DB >> 30982079

Computational algorithms for in silico profiling of activating mutations in cancer.

E Joseph Jordan1, Keshav Patil2, Krishna Suresh3, Jin H Park4,5, Yael P Mosse6,7, Mark A Lemmon4,5, Ravi Radhakrishnan8,9,10.   

Abstract

Methods to catalog and computationally assess the mutational landscape of proteins in human cancers are desirable. One approach is to adapt evolutionary or data-driven methods developed for predicting whether a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) is deleterious to protein structure and function. In cases where understanding the mechanism of protein activation and regulation is desired, an alternative approach is to employ structure-based computational approaches to predict the effects of point mutations. Through a case study of mutations in kinase domains of three proteins, namely, the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) in pediatric neuroblastoma patients, serine/threonine-protein kinase B-Raf (BRAF) in melanoma patients, and erythroblastic oncogene B 2 (ErbB2 or HER2) in breast cancer patients, we compare the two approaches above. We find that the structure-based method is most appropriate for developing a binary classification of several different mutations, especially infrequently occurring ones, concerning the activation status of the given target protein. This approach is especially useful if the effects of mutations on the interactions of inhibitors with the target proteins are being sought. However, many patients will present with mutations spread across different target proteins, making structure-based models computationally demanding to implement and execute. In this situation, data-driven methods-including those based on machine learning techniques and evolutionary methods-are most appropriate for recognizing and illuminate mutational patterns. We show, however, that, in the present status of the field, the two methods have very different accuracies and confidence values, and hence, the optimal choice of their deployment is context-dependent.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Driver mutations; Machine learning; Molecular dynamics; Passenger mutations; Structural bioinformatics

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30982079      PMCID: PMC6589134          DOI: 10.1007/s00018-019-03097-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci        ISSN: 1420-682X            Impact factor:   9.261


  119 in total

Review 1.  The hallmarks of cancer.

Authors:  D Hanahan; R A Weinberg
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2000-01-07       Impact factor: 41.582

2.  Predicting deleterious amino acid substitutions.

Authors:  P C Ng; S Henikoff
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 9.043

Review 3.  The conformational plasticity of protein kinases.

Authors:  Morgan Huse; John Kuriyan
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2002-05-03       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 4.  The protein kinase complement of the human genome.

Authors:  G Manning; D B Whyte; R Martinez; T Hunter; S Sudarsanam
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-12-06       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Juxtamembrane mutant V560GKit is more sensitive to Imatinib (STI571) compared with wild-type c-kit whereas the kinase domain mutant D816VKit is resistant.

Authors:  Michelle J Frost; Petranel T Ferrao; Timothy P Hughes; Leonie K Ashman
Journal:  Mol Cancer Ther       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 6.261

6.  A loss-of-function mutation of c-kit results in depletion of mast cells and interstitial cells of Cajal, while its gain-of-function mutation results in their oncogenesis.

Authors:  Y Kitamura; S Hirota; T Nishida
Journal:  Mutat Res       Date:  2001-06-02       Impact factor: 2.433

7.  Activating mutation of D835 within the activation loop of FLT3 in human hematologic malignancies.

Authors:  Y Yamamoto; H Kiyoi; Y Nakano; R Suzuki; Y Kodera; S Miyawaki; N Asou; K Kuriyama; F Yagasaki; C Shimazaki; H Akiyama; K Saito; M Nishimura; T Motoji; K Shinagawa; A Takeshita; H Saito; R Ueda; R Ohno; T Naoe
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2001-04-15       Impact factor: 22.113

Review 8.  Mechanisms of cancer drug resistance.

Authors:  Michael M Gottesman
Journal:  Annu Rev Med       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 13.739

9.  Germline-activating mutation in the kinase domain of KIT gene in familial gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Authors:  K Isozaki; B Terris; J Belghiti; S Schiffmann; S Hirota; J M Vanderwinden
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.307

Review 10.  Glivec (STI571, imatinib), a rationally developed, targeted anticancer drug.

Authors:  Renaud Capdeville; Elisabeth Buchdunger; Juerg Zimmermann; Alex Matter
Journal:  Nat Rev Drug Discov       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 84.694

View more
  4 in total

1.  Associations between WTAP gene polymorphisms and neuroblastoma susceptibility in Chinese children.

Authors:  Jue Tang; Hongting Lu; Zhonghua Yang; Le Li; Li Li; Jiao Zhang; Jiwen Cheng; Yong Li; Suhong Li; Haixia Zhou; Jing He; Wei Liu
Journal:  Transl Pediatr       Date:  2021-01

2.  A survey of multiscale modeling: Foundations, historical milestones, current status, and future prospects.

Authors:  Ravi Radhakrishnan
Journal:  AIChE J       Date:  2020-09-18       Impact factor: 3.993

Review 3.  Molecular-based precision oncology clinical decision making augmented by artificial intelligence.

Authors:  Jia Zeng; Md Abu Shufean
Journal:  Emerg Top Life Sci       Date:  2021-12-21

Review 4.  Mechanism of activation and the rewired network: New drug design concepts.

Authors:  Ruth Nussinov; Mingzhen Zhang; Ryan Maloney; Chung-Jung Tsai; Bengi Ruken Yavuz; Nurcan Tuncbag; Hyunbum Jang
Journal:  Med Res Rev       Date:  2021-10-25       Impact factor: 12.388

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.