Systems-level analyses of protein-protein interaction network dysfunctions via epichaperomics identify cancer-specific mechanisms of stress adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systems-level assessments of protein-protein interaction (PPI) network dysfunctions are currently out-of-reach because approaches enabling proteome-wide identification, analysis, and modulation of context-specific PPI changes in native (unengineered) cells and tissues are lacking. Herein, we take advantage of chemical binders of maladaptive scaffolding structures termed epichaperomes and develop an epichaperome-based 'omics platform, epichaperomics, to identify PPI alterations in disease. We provide multiple lines of evidence, at both biochemical and functional levels, demonstrating the importance of these probes to identify and study PPI network dysfunctions and provide mechanistically and therapeutically relevant proteome-wide insights. As proof-of-principle, we derive systems-level insight into PPI dysfunctions of cancer cells which enabled the discovery of a context-dependent mechanism by which cancer cells enhance the fitness of mitotic protein networks. Importantly, our systems levels analyses support the use of epichaperome chemical binders as therapeutic strategies aimed at normalizing PPI networks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".