1
|
A critical review of datasets and computational suites for improving cancer theranostics and biomarker discovery. MEDICAL ONCOLOGY (NORTHWOOD, LONDON, ENGLAND) 2022; 39:206. [PMID: 36175717 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-022-01815-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/30/2022] [Accepted: 07/29/2022] [Indexed: 10/14/2022]
Abstract
Cancer has been constantly evolving and so is the research pertaining to cancer diagnosis and therapeutic regimens. Early detection and specific therapeutics are the key features of modern cancer therapy. These requirements can only be fulfilled with the integration of diverse high-throughput technologies. Integration of advanced omics methodology involving genomics, epigenomics, proteomics, and transcriptomics provide a clear understanding of multi-faceted cancer. In the past few years, tremendous high-throughput data have been generated from cancer genomics and epigenomic analyses, which on further methodological analyses can yield better biological insights. The major epigenetic alterations reported in cancer are DNA methylation levels, histone post-translational modifications, and epi-miRNA regulating the oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes. While the genomic analyses like gene expression profiling, cancer gene prediction, and genome annotation divulge the genetic alterations in oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes. Also, systems biology approach using biological networks is being extensively used to identify novel cancer biomarkers. Therefore, integration of these multi-dimensional approaches will help to identify potential diagnostic and therapeutic biomarkers. Here, we reviewed the critical databases and tools dedicated to various epigenomic and genomic alterations in cancer. The review further focuses on the multi-omics resources available for further validating the identified cancer biomarkers. We also highlighted the tools for cancer biomarker discovery using a systems biology approach utilizing genomic and epigenomic data. Biomarkers predicted using such integrative approaches are shown to be more clinically relevant.
Collapse
|
2
|
Taylor DL, Gough A, Schurdak ME, Vernetti L, Chennubhotla CS, Lefever D, Pei F, Faeder JR, Lezon TR, Stern AM, Bahar I. Harnessing Human Microphysiology Systems as Key Experimental Models for Quantitative Systems Pharmacology. Handb Exp Pharmacol 2019; 260:327-367. [PMID: 31201557 PMCID: PMC6911651 DOI: 10.1007/164_2019_239] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
Two technologies that have emerged in the last decade offer a new paradigm for modern pharmacology, as well as drug discovery and development. Quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) is a complementary approach to traditional, target-centric pharmacology and drug discovery and is based on an iterative application of computational and systems biology methods with multiscale experimental methods, both of which include models of ADME-Tox and disease. QSP has emerged as a new approach due to the low efficiency of success in developing therapeutics based on the existing target-centric paradigm. Likewise, human microphysiology systems (MPS) are experimental models complementary to existing animal models and are based on the use of human primary cells, adult stem cells, and/or induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to mimic human tissues and organ functions/structures involved in disease and ADME-Tox. Human MPS experimental models have been developed to address the relatively low concordance of human disease and ADME-Tox with engineered, experimental animal models of disease. The integration of the QSP paradigm with the use of human MPS has the potential to enhance the process of drug discovery and development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- D Lansing Taylor
- University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
- Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
| | - Albert Gough
- University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Mark E Schurdak
- University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Lawrence Vernetti
- University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Chakra S Chennubhotla
- University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Daniel Lefever
- University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Fen Pei
- University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - James R Faeder
- University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Timothy R Lezon
- University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Andrew M Stern
- University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Ivet Bahar
- University of Pittsburgh Drug Discovery Institute, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Department of Computational and Systems Biology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| |
Collapse
|