Signaling Network Assessment of Mutations and Copy Number Variations Predict Breast Cancer Subtype-Specific Drug Targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individual cancer cells carry a bewildering number of distinct genomic alterations (e.g., copy number variations and mutations), making it a challenge to uncover genomic-driven mechanisms governing tumorigenesis. Here, we performed exome sequencing on several breast cancer cell lines that represent two subtypes, luminal and basal. We integrated these sequencing data and functional RNAi screening data (for the identification of genes that are essential for cell proliferation and survival) onto a human signaling network. Two subtype-specific networks that potentially represent core-signaling mechanisms underlying tumorigenesis were identified. Within both networks, we found that genes were differentially affected in different cell lines; i.e., in some cell lines a gene was identified through RNAi screening, whereas in others it was genomically altered. Interestingly, we found that highly connected network genes could be used to correctly classify breast tumors into subtypes on the basis of genomic alterations. Further, the networks effectively predicted subtype-specific drug targets, which were experimentally validated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".