Proteomic Dynamics of Breast Cancers Identifies Potential Therapeutic Protein Targets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Treatment and relevant targets for breast cancer (BC) remain limited, especially for triple-negative BC (TNBC). We quantified the proteomes of 76 human BC cell lines using data independent acquisition (DIA) based proteomics, identifying 6091 proteins. We then established a 24-protein panel distinguishing TNBC from other BC types. Integrating prior multi-omics datasets with the present proteomic results to predict the sensitivity of 90 drugs, we found that proteomics data improved drug sensitivity predictions. The sensitivity of the 90 drugs was mainly associated with cell cytoskeleton, signal transduction and mitochondrial function. We next profiled the proteome changes of nine cell lines (five TNBC cell lines, four non-TNBC cell lines) perturbated by EGFR/AKT/mTOR inhibitors. In the TNBC cell lines, metabolism pathways were dysregulated after EGFR/mTOR inhibitors treatment, while RNA modification and cell cycle pathways were dysregulated after AKT inhibitor treatment. Our study presents a systematic multi-omics and in-depth analysis of the proteome of BC cells. This work aims to aid in prioritization of potential therapeutic targets for TNBC as well as to provide insight into adaptive drug resistance in TNBC.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".