Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19234609›Full record

ArticlePloS one2009

Integrative analysis of epigenetic modulation in melanoma cell response to decitabine: clinical implications.

Ruth Halaban, Michael Krauthammer, Mattia Pelizzola, Elaine Cheng, Daniela Kovacs, Mario Sznol, Stephan Ariyan, Deepak Narayan, Antonella Bacchiocchi, Annette Molinaro and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Advancements in the delivery of epigenetic drugs.Expert opinion on drug delivery · 2015
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Ruth HalabanDepartment of Dermatology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America. ruth.halaban@yale.edu
Michael Krauthammer
Mattia Pelizzola
Elaine Cheng
Daniela Kovacs
Mario Sznol
Stephan Ariyan
Deepak Narayan
Antonella Bacchiocchi
Annette Molinaro
Yuval Kluger
Min Deng
Nam Tran
Wengeng Zhang
Mauro Picardo
Jan J Enghild
Yale University · USSan Gallicano Hospital · ITAarhus University · DKNew York University · USYale Cancer Center · US

Funding

Yale SPORE in Skin CancerP50CA121974 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI DAVID F STERN · 2006 to 2026
$43.9M
YALE SKIN DISEASES RESEARCH CORE CENTERP30AR041942 · NIAMS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI NARASIMHAN, SUKANYA · 1992 to 2008
$5.8M
Statistical Methods for Predicting Survival Outcomes from Genomic DataK22CA123146 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI MOLINARO, ANNETTE M · 2006 to 2008
$478k
Text Mining as a Translational Tool in BiomedicineK22LM009255 · NLM · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI KRAUTHAMMER, MICHAEL · 2006 to 2008
$440k
NCI NIH HHS 1 P50 CA121974NCI NIH HHS K22 CA123146NCI NIH HHS K22CA123146-2NCI NIH HHS P50 CA121974NIAMS NIH HHS P30 AR041942NLM NIH HHS K22 LM009255NLM NIH HHS K22LM009255
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decitabine, an epigenetic modifier that reactivates genes otherwise suppressed by DNA promoter methylation, is effective for some, but not all cancer patients, especially those with solid tumors. It is commonly recognized that to overcome resistance and improve outcome, treatment should be guided by tumor biology, which includes genotype, epigenotype, and gene expression profile. We therefore took an integrative approach to better understand melanoma cell response to clinically relevant dose of decitabine and identify complementary targets for combined therapy. We employed eight different melanoma cell strains, determined their growth, apoptotic and DNA damage responses to increasing doses of decitabine, and chose a low, clinically relevant drug dose to perform whole-genome differential gene expression, bioinformatic analysis, and protein validation studies. The data ruled out the DNA damage response, demonstrated the involvement of p21(Cip1) in a p53-independent manner, identified the TGFbeta pathway genes CLU and TGFBI as markers of sensitivity to decitabine and revealed an effect on histone modification as part of decitabine-induced gene expression. Mutation analysis and knockdown by siRNA implicated activated beta-catenin/MITF, but not BRAF, NRAS or PTEN mutations as a source for resistance. The importance of protein stability predicted from the results was validated by the synergistic effect of Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, in enhancing the growth arrest of decitabine in otherwise resistant melanoma cells. Our integrative analysis show that improved therapy can be achieved by comprehensive analysis of cancer cells, identified biomarkers for patient's selection and monitoring response, as well as targets for improved combination therapy.

Indexed as

ApoptosisAzacitidineBiomarkers, TumorCell Line, TumorCell ProliferationComputational BiologyDecitabineDNA DamageDrug Resistance, NeoplasmEpigenesis, GeneticGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansMelanomaAzacitidineBiomarkers, TumorDecitabine

Identifiers

PMID19234609
PMCPMC2642998
OpenAlexW2010076338

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.