Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27663479›Full record

ReviewSeminars in oncology2016

Using reverse-phase protein arrays as pharmacodynamic assays for functional proteomics, biomarker discovery, and drug development in cancer.

Yiling Lu, Shiyun Ling, Apurva M Hegde, Lauren A Byers, Kevin Coombes, Gordon B Mills, Rehan Akbani

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Seminars in oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Identification of Key Active Constituents inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. The Breast Cancer Proteome and Precision Oncology.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2023
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yiling LuDepartment of Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Shiyun LingDepartment of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Apurva M HegdeDepartment of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Lauren A ByersDepartment of Thoracic/Head & Neck Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Kevin CoombesDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Gordon B MillsDepartment of Systems Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Rehan AkbaniDepartment of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. Electronic address: RAkbani@mdanderson.org.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Translational Therapeutics Research Program (TT)P30CA016058 · NCI · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Tasleem J Padamsee · 1985 to 2026
$132.3M
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON SPORE IN OVARIAN CANCERP50CA083639 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BAST, ROBERT C · 1999 to 2015
$33.0M
Targeting the PI3K Signaling Pathway in Endometrial CarcinomaP50CA098258 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BODURKA, DIANE · 2003 to 2020
$32.0M
Systems-Based Predictions of Responses to Cancer TherapyU54CA112970 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIF-LAWRENC BERKELEY LAB · PI GRAY, JOE W. · 2004 to 2014
$27.1M
Integrative Pipeline for Analysis & Translational Application of TCGA Data (GDAC)U24CA143883 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI AKBANI, REHAN, MILLS, GORDON B. · 2009 to 2016
$10.6M
OutreachU54HG008100 · NHGRI · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI GRAY, JOE W., HEISER, LAURA MADELINE · 2014 to 2019
$10.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016058NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS P50 CA083639NCI NIH HHS P50 CA098258NCI NIH HHS U24 CA143883NCI NIH HHS U54 CA112970NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG008100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The majority of the targeted therapeutic agents in clinical use target proteins and protein function. Although DNA and RNA analyses have been used extensively to identify novel targets and patients likely to benefit from targeted therapies, these are indirect measures of the levels and functions of most therapeutic targets. More importantly, DNA and RNA analysis is ill-suited for determining the pharmacodynamic effects of target inhibition. Assessing changes in protein levels and function is the most efficient way to evaluate the mechanisms underlying sensitivity and resistance to targeted agents. Understanding these mechanisms is necessary to identify patients likely to benefit from treatment and to develop rational drug combinations to prevent or bypass therapeutic resistance. There is an urgent need for a robust approach to assess protein levels and protein function in model systems and across patient samples. While "shot gun" mass spectrometry can provide in-depth analysis of proteins across a limited number of samples, and emerging approaches such as multiple reaction monitoring have the potential to analyze candidate markers, mass spectrometry has not entered into general use because of the high cost, requirement of extensive analysis and support, and relatively large amount of material needed for analysis. Rather, antibody-based technologies, including immunohistochemistry, radioimmunoassays, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), and more recently protein arrays, remain the most common approaches for multiplexed protein analysis. Reverse-phase protein array (RPPA) technology has emerged as a robust, sensitive, cost-effective approach to the analysis of large numbers of samples for quantitative assessment of key members of functional pathways that are affected by tumor-targeting therapeutics. The RPPA platform is a powerful approach for identifying and validating targets, classifying tumor subsets, assessing pharmacodynamics, and identifying prognostic and predictive markers, adaptive responses and rational drug combinations in model systems and patient samples. Its greatest utility has been realized through integration with other analytic platforms such as DNA sequencing, transcriptional profiling, epigenomics, mass spectrometry, and metabolomics. The power of the technology is becoming apparent through its use in pathology laboratories and integration into trial design and implementation.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorDrug DiscoveryHumansInformation DisseminationProtein Array AnalysisProteinsProteomicsQuality ControlAntineoplastic AgentsBiomarkers, TumorProteinsBiomarkerDrug developmentPharmacodynamicProteomicsRPPA

Identifiers

PMID27663479
PMCPMC5111873
OpenAlexW2438829874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.