Literature DB >> 31447598

Patterns of Mutation Enrichment in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

César H Saravia1, Claudio Flores2, Luis J Schwarz2, Leny Bravo1, Jenny Zavaleta1, Jhajaira Araujo2, Silvia Neciosup2, Joseph A Pinto2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous disease with aggressive biology and complex tumor evolution. Our purpose was to identify enrichment patterns of genomic alterations in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).
METHODS: Genomic data were retrieved (mutations and copy number variations) from 550 primary TNBC tumors from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data sets and 58 mTNBC tumors from "Mutational Profile of Metastatic Breast Cancers" and "The Metastatic Breast Cancer Project." Statistical analysis of microarray data between primary and metastatic tumors was performed using a chi-square test, and the percentage of mutation enrichment in mTNBC cases was estimated. P-values were adjusted for multiple testing with Benjamini-Hochberg method with a false-discovery rate (FDR) <.05. In addition, we identified dominant hallmarks of cancer in mTNBC.
RESULTS: Seven genes with mutations were enriched in mTNBC after correcting for multiple testing. These included TTN, HMCN1, RELN, PKHD1L1, DMD, FRAS1, and RYR3. Only RPS6KB2 amplification was statistically significant in mTNBC; on the contrary, deletion of the genes TET1, RHOA, EPHA5, SET, KCNJ5, ABCG4, NKX3-1, SDHB, IGF2, and BRCA1 were the most frequent. The molecular alterations related to the hallmark of "genetic instability and mutation" were predominant in mTNBC. Interestingly, the hallmark of "activating immune destruction" was the least represented in mTNBC.
CONCLUSION: Despite the study limitations, we identified recurrent patterns of genomic alterations with potential contribution to tumor evolution. Deletions were the aberrations more commonly found in mTNBC. Several molecular alterations are potentially targetable.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Triple-negative breast cancer; amplification; biomarker; copy number variation; deletion; hallmarks of cancer; mutation

Year:  2019        PMID: 31447598      PMCID: PMC6689917          DOI: 10.1177/1179554919868482

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Med Insights Oncol        ISSN: 1179-5549


Introduction

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) corresponds to a group of heterogeneous and highly aggressive tumors characterized by the lack of expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2.[1] Despite the biological aggressiveness, these tumors present up to 30% of pathological complete responses after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, conferring good prognosis to patients, while those cases with residual diseases have the worse outcomes.[2] Triple-negative breast cancers can be classified based on their gene-expression profiling in six distinct subtypes: basal-like 1 (BL1), basal-like 2 (BL2), immunomodulatory (IM), mesenchymal (M), mesenchymal stem-like (MSL), and a luminal androgen receptor (LAR) subtype;[3] however, the subtypes IM and MSL have an mRNA background from immune and stromal cells, respectively, redefining the TNBC subtypes to only four groups: BL1, BL2, M, and LAR.[4] In a recent study, Bareche et al, reported that the TNBC subtypes have diverse molecular patterns with substantial differences in activating the hallmarks of cancer, while the BL1 subtype is genetically unstable, LAR tumors have a higher mutational burden. Mesenchymal and MSL subtypes have an increased angiogenesis, and IM present higher expression of immune checkpoint genes.[5] Triple-negative breast cancer has an intriguing molecular biology. These tumors present ≈80% of mutations in TP53, in sharp contrast to the luminal subtype (10%-30%); one consequence of the aforementioned is the high genomic instability in TNBC associated with a wide and continuous spectrum of clonal evolution distinct to other breast cancer subtypes.[6,7] Single-cell sequencing studies showed the patterns of clonal evolution of TNBC, where preexisting resistant cells undergo natural selection after chemotherapy accompanied by transcriptional reprogramming.[8] In this way, copy number variations (CNVs) seem to be an early event during tumor evolution, present even before chemotherapy exposition.[9] We conducted this study to identify patterns of enrichment of gene alterations through metastases in TNBC and then evaluate how these changes activate specific hallmarks of cancer during tumor evolution.

Methods

Data sets for primary and metastatic tumors

We retrieved genomic data regarding mutations and CNV of 550 primary triple-negative breast cancer (pTNBC) tumors from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) data sets and 58 metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) tumors from the “Mutational Profile of Metastatic Breast Cancers” and “The Metastatic Breast Cancer Project.” The genomic data of the cohorts was retrieved from http://www.cbioportal.org/.

Identification of enriched genes in metastatic tumors

Differences in proportions of alterations (mutations and CNV) between primary versus metastatic tumors were evaluated by chi-square test, and the percentage of enrichment of alteration in each gene was estimated using the following formula P-values were adjusted for multiple testing with Benjamini-Hochberg method considering a false-discovery rate (FDR) <.05.

Analysis of hallmarks of cancer

The influence of altered genes enriched in metastatic conditions in the hallmarks of cancer was analyzed through normalized pointwise mutual information (NPMI) of the Cancer Hallmarks Analytics Tool (CHAT).[10] The analysis was conducted on an online platform (http://chat.lionproject.net/).

Protein-protein interaction network

We conducted an analysis for protein-protein interaction of the altered genes using the online platform STRING (Search Tool for the Retrieval of Interacting Genes/Proteins, version 10.5, STRING Consortium©) available at http://string-db.org. The analysis was performed with a medium confidence level (0.4). A green line indicates activation; red line, inhibition; blue line, binding; pink line, posttranslational modifications; and yellow line, expression.

Results

Mutations enriched in mTNBC

In total, 135 mutations were present in both primary and metastatic tumors, and 20 genes had a P-value < .05 in the analysis using chi-square test. After adjusting for multiple comparisons, only mutations in seven genes were statistically significant in mTNBC. These genes included TTN, HMCN1, RELN, PKHD1L1, DMD, FRAS1, and RYR3 (Table 1).
Table 1.

Mutations enriched in mTNBC.

GenepTNBC (%)mTNBC (%)EnrichmentP-valueAdjusted P-value
TTN 6.531.0374.1.0000000005.0000000675
HMCN1 1.18.6690.2.0000427489.0028855508
RELN 1.18.6690.2.0000427489.0019237005
PKHD1L1 1.610.3532.2.0000477342.0016110293
DMD 1.16.9532.2.0009452504.0255217608
FRAS1 1.36.9441.9.0022409009.0432173745
RYR3 1.36.9441.9.0022409009.0378152027

Abbreviations: pTNBC, primary triple-negative breast cancer; mTNBC, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Mutations enriched in mTNBC. Abbreviations: pTNBC, primary triple-negative breast cancer; mTNBC, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Copy number variations enriched in mTNBC

In total, 661 amplifications were present in both, the primary and metastatic TNBC. Chi-square test identified 17 genes statistically different between the two groups. Only RPS6KB2 was significantly enriched after adjusting for multiple comparisons. On the contrary, 344 genes with deletions were identified, and from them, 94 presented relevant differences between primary and metastatic tumors. Finally, after adjusting for multiple comparisons, 76 deletions were significant in mTNBC including TET1, RHOA, EPHA5, SET, KCNJ5, NKX3-1, ABCG4, SDHB, IGF2, BRCA1, SESN3, PMS2, CSF1R, CD74, TSC1, SKP2, PLCG2, PIK3C2G, EIF4A2, ZNF331, FNBP1, ASXL3, PDGFRB, U2AF2, PBRM1, KMT2A, EPHB3, IL7R, DKK1, NUP214, SETD2, DDX6, NAV3, RPS14, ETV5, ABL1, MAP3K13, FLT4, FANCM, TOP1, TFPT, SLC34A2, FLI1, ETS1, NUP98, SPEN, CARS, EPHA2, MKI67, DNAH12, ARHGEF12, TEK, PRDM2, EPHA8, CDC42, CBL, DDX10, TICAM1, KDM4C, MEF2A, NCKIPSD, ZBTB16, EPHB2, FZD10, CHEK1, PAX7, ATM, RICTOR, AKT1, EGFR, AHNAK2, ZNF300, ACVR1B, IGF1R, PHOX2B, and LRP1B (Table 2).
Table 2.

Copy number variations enriched in TNBC.

GenepTNBC (%)mTNBC (%)EnrichmentP-valueAdjusted P-value
Amplifications
RPS6KB21.098.62690.22994.2749E–05.02817153
Deletions
TET10.508.601480.52.85E–079.8031E-05
RHOA0.406.901796.61.6914E–06.00029091
SET0.205.202744.87.7681E–06.00066806
EPHA50.205.202744.87.7681E–06.00089074
SDHB0.405.201322.4.00011484.00493791
ABCG40.405.201322.4.00011484.00564332
KCNJ50.706.90848.38.7971E–05.00605238
TFPT0.203.401796.6.00073375.00615632
TOP10.203.401796.6.00073375.00631023
FANCM0.203.401796.6.00073375.00647203
NKX3-10.405.201322.4.00011484.00658387
FLT40.203.401796.6.00073375.00664235
MAP3K130.203.401796.6.00073375.00682187
ABL10.203.401796.6.00073375.00701137
ETV50.203.401796.6.00073375.00721169
RPS140.203.401796.6.00073375.0074238
NAV30.203.401796.6.00073375.00764877
DDX60.203.401796.6.00073375.00788779
SETD20.203.401796.6.00073375.00814224
NUP2140.203.401796.6.00073375.00841364
DKK10.203.401796.6.00073375.00870377
IL7R0.203.401796.6.00073375.00901462
EPHB30.203.401796.6.00073375.00934849
KMT2A0.203.401796.6.00073375.00970805
PBRM10.203.401796.6.00073375.01009637
U2AF20.203.401796.6.00073375.01051705
PDGFRB0.203.401796.6.00073375.01097432
ASXL30.203.401796.6.00073375.01147315
FNBP10.203.401796.6.00073375.01201949
IGF20.906.90658.6.000329.01257496
ZNF3310.203.401796.6.00073375.01262047
EIF4A20.203.401796.6.00073375.0132847
PIK3C2G0.203.401796.6.00073375.01402274
PLCG20.203.401796.6.00073375.01484761
SKP20.203.401796.6.00073375.01577558
PRDM20.705.20611.2.0025429.01650488
TEK0.705.20611.2.0025429.01682228
TSC10.203.401796.6.00073375.01682729
ARHGEF120.75.2611.2.0025429030.0171521300
DNAH120.75.2611.2.0025429030.0174951726
MKI670.75.2611.2.0025429030.0178522170
CD740.23.41796.6.0007337480.0180292366
EPHA20.75.2611.2.0025429030.0182241382
SLC34A21.36.9441.9.0022409010.0183540463
CARS0.75.2611.2.0025429030.0186118858
SPEN0.75.2611.2.0025429030.0190164920
CSF1R0.23.41796.6.0007337480.0194161009
NUP980.75.2611.2.0025429030.0194390807
ETS10.75.2611.2.0025429030.0198808780
FLI10.75.2611.2.0025429030.0203432240
PMS20.23.41796.6.0007337480.0210341093
SESN30.23.41796.6.0007337480.0229463011
BRCA10.55.2848.3.0006975500.0239957200
IGF1R0.43.4848.3.0057136480.0265607421
ACVR1B0.43.4848.3.0057136480.0269245878
ZNF3000.43.4848.3.0057136480.0272985404
AHNAK20.43.4848.3.0057136480.0276830269
EGFR0.43.4848.3.0057136480.0280784987
AKT10.43.4848.3.0057136480.0284854335
RICTOR0.43.4848.3.0057136480.0289043369
ATM0.43.4848.3.0057136480.0293357450
PAX70.43.4848.3.0057136480.0297802259
CHEK10.43.4848.3.0057136480.0302383833
LRP1B0.95.2469.0.0067276310.0304513824
FZD100.43.4848.3.0057136480.0307108580
PHOX2B0.95.2469.0.0067276310.0308574009
EPHB20.43.4848.3.0057136480.0311983319
ZBTB160.43.4848.3.0057136480.0317015308
NCKIPSD0.43.4848.3.0057136480.0322212281
MEF2A0.43.4848.3.0057136480.0327582485
KDM4C0.43.4848.3.0057136480.0333134731
TICAM10.43.4848.3.0057136480.0338878433
DDX100.43.4848.3.0057136480.0344823669
CBL0.43.4848.3.0057136480.0350981234
CDC420.43.4848.3.0057136480.0357362711
EPHA80.43.4848.3.0057136480.0363980539

Abbreviations: pTNBC, primary triple-negative breast cancer; mTNBC, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Copy number variations enriched in TNBC. Abbreviations: pTNBC, primary triple-negative breast cancer; mTNBC, metastatic triple-negative breast cancer.

Influence of alterations in hallmarks of cancer

The analysis of the influence of enriched alterations in mTNBC on the hallmarks of cancer showed that the hallmark “genome instability and mutation” was extensively overrepresented followed by “sustaining proliferative signaling.” Paradoxically, the hallmark “avoiding immune destruction” was the least represented (Figure 1).
Figure 1.

Hallmarks of cancer enriched in mTNBC.

Values of normalized pointwise mutual information (NPMI) were estimated using the software Cancer Hallmarks Analytical Tool.

Abbreviations: AID, avoiding immune destruction; EGS, evading growth suppressors; GIM, genome instability and mutation; IA, inducing angiogenesis; IM, Invasion and metastasis; RCD, resisting cell death; RI, replicative immortality; SPS; sustaining proliferative signaling; TPI, tumor promoting inflammation.

Hallmarks of cancer enriched in mTNBC. Values of normalized pointwise mutual information (NPMI) were estimated using the software Cancer Hallmarks Analytical Tool. Abbreviations: AID, avoiding immune destruction; EGS, evading growth suppressors; GIM, genome instability and mutation; IA, inducing angiogenesis; IM, Invasion and metastasis; RCD, resisting cell death; RI, replicative immortality; SPS; sustaining proliferative signaling; TPI, tumor promoting inflammation.

Protein-protein interaction between genes presenting alterations enriched in mTNBC

We observed that there was an absence of interaction between several genes; however, three clusters were identified. The first group involves genes related to DNA repair, where ATM is the central node. The second group has genes related to cell metabolism, such as AKT1, RICTOR, TSC1 among others. Tyrosine kinase proteins (receptors and no receptors) were part of the third cluster, containing genes such as EGFR, PDGFR, IGF1R ABL1 and ephrin (Eph) receptor subfamily (Figure 2).
Figure 2.

Prediction of protein-protein interaction among gene alterations significantly enriched in mTNBC.

Prediction of protein-protein interaction among gene alterations significantly enriched in mTNBC.

Discussion

Clonal evolution of TNBC is an intriguing phenomenon where patterns of evolution using single-cell sequencing have been previously unveiled; however, there are several unanswered questions about the key mechanisms favored during metastases.[8,11] In this work, we found molecular mechanisms that are enriched in the metastatic setting. The main limitation of the study is we evaluated changes in mutational rates between primary versus metastatic cohorts rather analyze a longitudinal cohort. Although single-cell sequencing could be a better approach to evaluate clonal evolution, our approach comprehends genes, hallmarks, and pathways significantly altered in mTNBC. The evaluation of new activating mutations in cancer is challenging because of the high rate of false-positive results.[12] In our study, mutations in the TTN gene (whose germline mutations are associated to familial restrictive cardiomyopathy) were the most frequently mutated gene in mTNBC, although it is commonly described as a false-positive finding. TTN encodes for the giant sarcomeric filament Titin.[13] Involvement of TTN in cancer remains unclear and several studies suggested it has not a participation in tumorigenesis or cancer progression while other studies suggest a direct involvement in cancer-related pathways.[14-16] TTN alterations are more recurrent in TNBC than other breast cancer subtypes.[17] Regarding HMCN1, although its specific function remains unknown, it has been related to cancer cell invasion and metastasis. Interestingly, the intratumor heterogeneity of HMCN1 is associated with the prognostic of breast cancer.[18] On the contrary, RELN is involved in cell migration where a low expression of this gene is associated with poor outcome in breast malignancies.[19,20] Amplifications were less observed than gene deletions. The RPS6KB2 gene amplification was enriched in mTNBC. RPS6KB2 encodes the S6K2 protein, an effector from the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signaling pathway, promoting protein synthesis and cell proliferation. In altered states, S6K2 produces aberrant mTORC1 function, thus inducing tumorigenesis.[21] A high number of deletions (n = 76) were found in mTNBC. It describes the greater importance of deletions over amplifications. In our analysis, gene deletions were around six-fold higher in mTNBC than in pTNBC (pTNBC: 0.4%-1.3% vs mTNBC: 3.4%-8.6%; Table 2). Our data contrast with the results of Gao et al,[9] whose work suggests that CNVs are an early event during tumor evolution. Deletion of key genes are important for tumor progression and metastases. In our work, TET1, a gene that encodes a cytosine demethylase, was the most frequently deleted in mTNBC (8.6%). TET1 expression decreases cell invasion and tumor formation in human breast cancer cell line xenografts, inhibiting DNA methylation of tissue inhibitors of the metalloproteinase family proteins.[22] The hallmarks of cancer describe 10 biological capabilities from tumors acquired during their evolution.[23] In mTNBC, genes whose alterations were more recurrent are related to the hallmark “genomic instability and mutation,” this is explained by the high incidence of TP53 and BRCA1 mutations in pTNBC.[3] On the contrary, the hallmark “avoiding immune destruction” was the least represented among gene alterations in mTNBC (Figure 1). Our results suggest that the activation of this hallmark is an early event that does not need to be significantly increased during metastases. Finally, our data of protein-protein interaction indicates that at least three gene clusters with alterations are prevalent in mTNBC (Figure 2). These clusters involve genes related to DNA repair, in concordance with the overrepresentation of the hallmark of “genomic instability and mutation.” In addition, evidence of increased metabolism is observed through the enrichment of alterations in genes participating in the mTOR signaling pathway. The third cluster of genes involves well-known tyrosine kinase receptors such as EGFR, PDGFR, and others. The presence of genes encoding Eph receptors in the interactions is interesting. In our analysis, we observed that the loss of this family of receptors is common in mTNBC. Although typically, Eph receptors promote cell division and are commonly overexpressed in human tumors and have a dual role in tumor promotion and suppression.[24,25] In conclusion, despite the limitations of this study, we could identify genes and potential mechanisms involved in TNBC evolution through metastasis. Our analysis identified that deletions were the most frequently enriched alterations and also suggests that some biological mechanisms are potentially targetable.
  25 in total

1.  Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies.

Authors:  Brian D Lehmann; Joshua A Bauer; Xi Chen; Melinda E Sanders; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Yu Shyr; Jennifer A Pietenpol
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 14.808

2.  Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence.

Authors:  Rebecca Dent; Maureen Trudeau; Kathleen I Pritchard; Wedad M Hanna; Harriet K Kahn; Carol A Sawka; Lavina A Lickley; Ellen Rawlinson; Ping Sun; Steven A Narod
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2007-08-01       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Differential expression of S6K2 dictates tissue-specific requirement for S6K1 in mediating aberrant mTORC1 signaling and tumorigenesis.

Authors:  Caterina Nardella; Andrea Lunardi; Giuseppe Fedele; John G Clohessy; Andrea Alimonti; Sara C Kozma; George Thomas; Massimo Loda; Pier Paolo Pandolfi
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2011-03-28       Impact factor: 12.701

4.  The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes.

Authors:  Lisa A Carey; E Claire Dees; Lynda Sawyer; Lisa Gatti; Dominic T Moore; Frances Collichio; David W Ollila; Carolyn I Sartor; Mark L Graham; Charles M Perou
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2007-04-15       Impact factor: 12.531

5.  Loss of reelin expression in breast cancer is epigenetically controlled and associated with poor prognosis.

Authors:  Torsten Stein; Emilio Cosimo; Xinzi Yu; Paul R Smith; Ronald Simon; Lorna Cottrell; Marie-Anne Pringle; Alexandra K Bell; Laura Lattanzio; Guido Sauter; Cristiana Lo Nigro; Timothy Crook; Laura M Machesky; Barry A Gusterson
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2010-09-16       Impact factor: 4.307

6.  The clonal and mutational evolution spectrum of primary triple-negative breast cancers.

Authors:  Sohrab P Shah; Andrew Roth; Rodrigo Goya; Arusha Oloumi; Gavin Ha; Yongjun Zhao; Gulisa Turashvili; Jiarui Ding; Kane Tse; Gholamreza Haffari; Ali Bashashati; Leah M Prentice; Jaswinder Khattra; Angela Burleigh; Damian Yap; Virginie Bernard; Andrew McPherson; Karey Shumansky; Anamaria Crisan; Ryan Giuliany; Alireza Heravi-Moussavi; Jamie Rosner; Daniel Lai; Inanc Birol; Richard Varhol; Angela Tam; Noreen Dhalla; Thomas Zeng; Kevin Ma; Simon K Chan; Malachi Griffith; Annie Moradian; S-W Grace Cheng; Gregg B Morin; Peter Watson; Karen Gelmon; Stephen Chia; Suet-Feung Chin; Christina Curtis; Oscar M Rueda; Paul D Pharoah; Sambasivarao Damaraju; John Mackey; Kelly Hoon; Timothy Harkins; Vasisht Tadigotla; Mahvash Sigaroudinia; Philippe Gascard; Thea Tlsty; Joseph F Costello; Irmtraud M Meyer; Connie J Eaves; Wyeth W Wasserman; Steven Jones; David Huntsman; Martin Hirst; Carlos Caldas; Marco A Marra; Samuel Aparicio
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Eph receptors and Ephrins in cancer: common themes and controversies.

Authors:  Jin Chen; Guanglei Zhuang; Leslie Frieden; Waldemar Debinski
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 12.701

8.  The landscape of cancer genes and mutational processes in breast cancer.

Authors:  Philip J Stephens; Patrick S Tarpey; Helen Davies; Peter Van Loo; Chris Greenman; David C Wedge; Serena Nik-Zainal; Sancha Martin; Ignacio Varela; Graham R Bignell; Lucy R Yates; Elli Papaemmanuil; David Beare; Adam Butler; Angela Cheverton; John Gamble; Jonathan Hinton; Mingming Jia; Alagu Jayakumar; David Jones; Calli Latimer; King Wai Lau; Stuart McLaren; David J McBride; Andrew Menzies; Laura Mudie; Keiran Raine; Roland Rad; Michael Spencer Chapman; Jon Teague; Douglas Easton; Anita Langerød; Ming Ta Michael Lee; Chen-Yang Shen; Benita Tan Kiat Tee; Bernice Wong Huimin; Annegien Broeks; Ana Cristina Vargas; Gulisa Turashvili; John Martens; Aquila Fatima; Penelope Miron; Suet-Feung Chin; Gilles Thomas; Sandrine Boyault; Odette Mariani; Sunil R Lakhani; Marc van de Vijver; Laura van 't Veer; John Foekens; Christine Desmedt; Christos Sotiriou; Andrew Tutt; Carlos Caldas; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Samuel A J R Aparicio; Anne Vincent Salomon; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Andrea L Richardson; Peter J Campbell; P Andrew Futreal; Michael R Stratton
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 9.  Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation.

Authors:  Douglas Hanahan; Robert A Weinberg
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2011-03-04       Impact factor: 41.582

Review 10.  Eph receptors and ephrins as targets for cancer therapy.

Authors:  Hong-Qing Xi; Xiao-Song Wu; Bo Wei; Lin Chen
Journal:  J Cell Mol Med       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 5.310

View more
  7 in total

1.  Robust prognostic model based on immune infiltration-related genes and clinical information in ovarian cancer.

Authors:  Xi Zhang; Weikaixin Kong; Miaomiao Gao; Weiran Huang; Chao Peng; Zhuo Huang; Zhengwei Xie; Hongyan Guo
Journal:  J Cell Mol Med       Date:  2022-06-23       Impact factor: 5.295

2.  Inhibition of autophagy by chloroquine prevents resistance to PI3K/AKT inhibitors and potentiates their antitumor effect in combination with paclitaxel in triple negative breast cancer models.

Authors:  Stefania Cocco; Alessandra Leone; Maria Serena Roca; Rita Lombardi; Michela Piezzo; Roberta Caputo; Chiara Ciardiello; Susan Costantini; Francesca Bruzzese; Maria José Sisalli; Alfredo Budillon; Michelino De Laurentiis
Journal:  J Transl Med       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 8.440

3.  Deconvolution of the Genomic and Epigenomic Interaction Landscape of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Jiande Wu; Tarun Karthik Kumar Mamidi; Lu Zhang; Chindo Hicks
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-31       Impact factor: 6.639

4.  Comprehensive Analysis of HMCN1 Somatic Mutation in Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Ziqi Gong; Xiaowen Wu; Qian Guo; Haizhen Du; Fenghao Zhang; Yan Kong
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 4.141

5.  Prognostic analysis of cuproptosis-related gene in triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Shengnan Sha; Luyi Si; Xinrui Wu; Yuanbiao Chen; Hui Xiong; Ying Xu; Wangrui Liu; Haijun Mei; Tao Wang; Mei Li
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2022-08-01       Impact factor: 8.786

6.  Serum metabolomics in chickens infected with Cryptosporidium baileyi.

Authors:  Xue-Mei Wu; Xin Yang; Xian-Cheng Fan; Xi Chen; Yu-Xin Wang; Long-Xian Zhang; Jun-Ke Song; Guang-Hui Zhao
Journal:  Parasit Vectors       Date:  2021-06-26       Impact factor: 3.876

7.  BRD9 controls the oxytocin signaling pathway in gastric cancer via CANA2D4, CALML6, GNAO1, and KCNJ5.

Authors:  Yuan Wang; Xue-Yan Jiang; Xi-Yong Yu
Journal:  Transl Cancer Res       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 1.241

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.