Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42534387›Full record

ArticleNeuro-oncology advances

Membrane proteomic profiling to identify candidate therapy targets for glioblastoma infiltration.

Harry Porter, Kayley Mulhall, Maria Shah, Jeffy Joseph Vinohar, Konstantinos-Panagiotis Karadimas, Shaylen Mistry, Simon Deacon, Farhana Haque, Emyr Bakker, David J Boocock and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuro-oncology advances. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

Harry PorterBiodiscovery Institute, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Kayley MulhallBiodiscovery Institute, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Maria ShahBiodiscovery Institute, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Jeffy Joseph VinoharBiodiscovery Institute, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Konstantinos-Panagiotis KaradimasBiodiscovery Institute, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Shaylen MistryBiodiscovery Institute, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Simon DeaconBiodiscovery Institute, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0004-7953-4239
Farhana HaqueThe Medical School, College of Health and Science, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Emyr BakkerThe School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Lancashire, Preston, UK.
David J BoocockJohn van Geest Cancer Research Centre, The Centre for Systems Health and Integrated Metabolic Research (SHiMR), Nottingham Trent University, Clifton, Nottingham, UK.
Clare CoveneyJohn van Geest Cancer Research Centre, The Centre for Systems Health and Integrated Metabolic Research (SHiMR), Nottingham Trent University, Clifton, Nottingham, UK.
Robert LayfieldSchool of Life Sciences, Queen's Medical Centre, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Ruman RahmanBiodiscovery Institute, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Phoebe McCrorieBiodiscovery Institute, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6892-497X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive brain tumor characterized by rapid growth and infiltration. New therapies are desperately needed to improve GBM patient outcomes. Intra-tumoral heterogeneity is a common driver of failure for novel GBM treatments, and many preclinical studies rely on cell lines established from the tumor core. As a result, they fail to characterize the infiltrative tumor cells, which remain post-surgery and ultimately drive tumor recurrence. Methods: This study characterizes the membrane proteome of 3 patient-derived GBM cell lines isolated from the tumor invasive margin (GIN8, GIN28, and GIN31), which is a proxy for residual disease post-surgery. We combined plasma membrane protein analysis with total protein analysis using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to uncover therapeutic targets most amenable for drug repurposing. Molecular docking analysis predicted specific binding pockets on the surface of key membrane proteins against which the top 10 approved drug candidates were screened based on their binding energy scores. Results: Membrane proteins such as EDIL3, DYSF, ROBO1, SERPINE2, LOXL1, and CD70 were consistently significantly upregulated across GBM cell lines relative to healthy astrocyte controls, indicating potential functional roles in GBM progression. Molecular docking identified nilotinib (targeting LOXL1) and darifenacin (targeting SH3KBP1) as candidate drugs that can bind to identified membrane proteins. Nilotinib and darifenacin produced average IC Conclusions: These findings suggest that targeting membrane proteins offers promise for developing effective GBM therapies predicated on the most prognostically relevant intra-tumor region.

Indexed as

glioblastomamembranemolecular dockingsurface proteometumor infiltration

Identifiers

PMID42534387
PMCPMC13420503

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.