Protein-Protein Interactions in Papillary and Nonpapillary Urothelial Carcinoma Architectures: Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bladder cancer is a disease characterized by complex perturbations in gene networks and is heterogeneous in terms of histology, mutations, and prognosis. Advances in high-throughput sequencing technologies, genome-wide association studies, and bioinformatics methods have revealed greater insights into the pathogenesis of complex diseases. Network biology-based approaches have been used to identify complex protein-protein interactions (PPIs) that can lead to potential drug targets. There is a need to better understand PPIs specific to urothelial carcinoma. Objective: This study aimed to elucidate PPIs specific to papillary and nonpapillary urothelial carcinoma and identify the most connected or "hub" proteins, as these are potential drug targets. Methods: A novel PPI analysis tool, Proteinarium, was used to analyze RNA sequencing data from 132 patients with papillary and 270 patients with nonpapillary urothelial carcinoma from the TCGA Cell 2017 dataset and 39 patients with papillary and 88 patients with nonpapillary urothelial carcinoma from the TCGA Nature 2014 dataset. Hub proteins were identified in distinct PPI networks specific to papillary and nonpapillary urothelial carcinoma. Statistical significance of clusters was assessed using the Fisher exact test (P<.001), and network separation was quantified using the interactome-based separation score. Results: RPS27A, UBA52, and VAMP8 were the most connected or "hub" proteins identified in the network specific to the papillary urothelial carcinoma. In the network specific to the nonpapillary carcinoma, GNB1, RHOA, UBC, and FPR2 were found to be the hub proteins. Notably, GNB1 and FPR2 were among the proteins that have existing drugs targeting them. Conclusions: We identified distinct PPI networks and the hub proteins specific to papillary and nonpapillary urothelial carcinomas. However, these findings are limited by the use of transcriptomic data and require experimental validation to confirm the functional relevance of the identified targets.
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 | 0.001 | 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".