ArticleCancers2024
Cell State Transition Models Stratify Breast Cancer Cell Phenotypes and Reveal New Therapeutic Targets.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Twin models to address long-term treatment toxicities in children and young adults with cancer.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- Exploring the Potential of Digital Twins in Cancer Treatment: A Narrative Review of Reviews.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- From virtual to reality: innovative practices of digital twins in tumor therapy.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding signaling patterns of transformation and controlling cell phenotypes is a challenge of current biology. Here we applied a cell State Transition Assessment and Regulation (cSTAR) approach to a perturbation dataset of single cell phosphoproteomic patterns of multiple breast cancer (BC) and normal breast tissue-derived cell lines. Following a separation of luminal, basal, and normal cell states, we identified signaling nodes within core control networks, delineated causal connections, and determined the primary drivers underlying oncogenic transformation and transitions across distinct BC subtypes. Whereas cell lines within the same BC subtype have different mutational and expression profiles, the architecture of the core network was similar for all luminal BC cells, and mTOR was a main oncogenic driver. In contrast, core networks of basal BC were heterogeneous and segregated into roughly four major subclasses with distinct oncogenic and BC subtype drivers. Likewise, normal breast tissue cells were separated into two different subclasses. Based on the data and quantified network topologies, we derived mechanistic cSTAR models that serve as digital cell twins and allow the deliberate control of cell movements within a Waddington landscape across different cell states. These cSTAR models suggested strategies of normalizing phosphorylation networks of BC cell lines using small molecule inhibitors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.