DOCSLIB.ORG

Supplementary Table 6

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supplementary Table 6 no PV no PV Receptor Ligand Rec. phos. Rec. expr. Rec. phos. Receptor Ligand Rec. phos. Rec. expr. versus Lig. versus Lig. versus Rec. versus Lig. versus Lig. expr.* expr. expr. expr. expr.* FGFR3 FGF13 0.66 0.02 -0.09 FGFR3 FGF8 -0.03 0.88 AXL GAS6 0.65 0.82 0.48 PDGFRB PDGFB 0.25 0.86 ERBB4 NRG1 0.59 0.19 0.52 FGFR3 FGF17 -0.05 0.82 ERBB4 BTC 0.52 0.60 0.52 AXL GAS6 0.65 0.82 EGFR AREG 0.46 0.70 0.52 ERBB4 NRG3 0.45 0.81 ERBB4 NRG3 0.45 0.81 0.52 FGFR3 FGF14 -0.05 0.80 EPHA4 EFNB2 0.45 0.25 0.01 FGFR3 FGF4 0.08 0.78 ERBB4 NRG2 0.44 0.55 0.52 FGFR3 FGF19 -0.11 0.77 ERBB4 HBEGF 0.40 0.15 0.52 EGFR BTC 0.25 0.73 TEK ANGPT2 0.39 0.51 0.16 FGFR3 FGF18 -0.03 0.72 IGF1R IGF1 0.39 0.40 0.24 FGFR3 FGF5 -0.12 0.72 EGFR HBEGF 0.39 0.52 0.52 FGFR3 FGF16 -0.09 0.72 ERBB4 NRG4 0.38 0.58 0.52 FGFR3 FGF11 -0.01 0.72 MST1R MST1 0.35 -0.04 -0.19 EGFR AREG 0.46 0.70 FGFR3 FGF10 0.29 -0.17 -0.09 EGFR EPGN 0.15 0.69 EPHB2 EFNB3 0.28 -0.20 -0.11 FGFR3 FGF9 -0.28 0.68 IGF1R INS 0.27 0.19 0.24 ERBB4 BTC 0.52 0.60 KIT KITLG 0.26 -0.25 0.28 NTRK1 NTF4 0.25 0.59 NTRK1 NTF4 0.25 0.59 0.26 NTRK1 NGF 0.09 0.58 PDGFRB PDGFB 0.25 0.86 -0.19 ERBB4 NRG4 0.38 0.58 EGFR BTC 0.25 0.73 0.52 ERBB4 NRG2 0.44 0.55 IGF1R IGF2 0.24 0.19 0.24 FLT4 FIGF 0.12 0.54 EPHA4 EFNA2 0.19 -0.12 0.01 EGFR HBEGF 0.39 0.52 FGFR3 FGF12 0.18 0.24 -0.09 TEK ANGPT2 0.39 0.51 EGFR EPGN 0.15 0.69 0.52 EPHA7 EFNA1 -0.65 0.50 EPHA4 EFNA5 0.14 -0.21 0.01 EPHA7 EFNA2 0.11 0.42 FGFR3 FGF2 0.14 -0.76 -0.09 IGF1R IGF1 0.39 0.40 EPHA7 EFNA4 0.14 0.00 -0.25 FLT4 VEGFC -0.11 0.38 FLT4 FIGF 0.12 0.54 0.21 EPHB2 EFNB2 -0.66 0.37 TEK ANGPTL1 0.12 0.24 0.16 EGFR TGFA -0.10 0.33 EPHA7 EFNA2 0.11 0.42 -0.25 TEK ANGPT1 -0.02 0.31 EPHA4 EFNA1 0.10 -0.21 0.01 ERBB4 EREG -0.10 0.25 NTRK1 NGF 0.09 0.58 0.26 NTRK1 NTF3 -0.09 0.25 FGFR3 FGF4 0.08 0.78 -0.09 EPHA4 EFNB2 0.45 0.25 ERBB3 NRG1 0.08 -0.68 0.22 FGFR3 FGF12 0.18 0.24 INSR INS 0.06 -0.02 0.29 TEK ANGPTL1 0.12 0.24 EGFR EREG 0.02 0.24 0.52 EGFR EREG 0.02 0.24 FGFR3 FGF11 -0.01 0.72 -0.09 EPHA7 EFNA3 -0.15 0.21 TEK ANGPT1 -0.02 0.31 0.16 EPHA7 EFNA5 -0.16 0.19 FGFR3 FGF8 -0.03 0.88 -0.09 IGF1R IGF2 0.24 0.19 FGFR3 FGF18 -0.03 0.72 -0.09 ERBB4 NRG1 0.59 0.19 FGFR3 FGF17 -0.05 0.82 -0.09 IGF1R INS 0.27 0.19 EPHA4 EFNA4 -0.05 0.15 0.01 PDGFRB PDGFD -0.17 0.19 FGFR3 FGF14 -0.05 0.80 -0.09 EPHA4 EFNB1 -0.16 0.18 MET HGF -0.07 -0.48 0.23 EPHA4 EFNA4 -0.05 0.15 FGFR3 FGF1 -0.07 -0.28 -0.09 ERBB4 HBEGF 0.40 0.15 NTRK1 NTF3 -0.09 0.25 0.26 KIT CLEC11A -0.09 0.05 KIT CLEC11A -0.09 0.05 0.28 EPHA4 EFNA3 -0.16 0.04 FGFR3 FGF16 -0.09 0.72 -0.09 FGFR3 FGF13 0.66 0.02 EGFR TGFA -0.10 0.33 0.52 EPHA7 EFNA4 0.14 0.00 ERBB4 EREG -0.10 0.25 0.52 INSR INS 0.06 -0.02 FLT4 VEGFC -0.11 0.38 0.21 MST1R MST1 0.35 -0.04 FGFR3 FGF19 -0.11 0.77 -0.09 EPHA4 EFNA2 0.19 -0.12 FGFR3 FGF5 -0.12 0.72 -0.09 MERTK GAS6 -0.16 -0.13 ERBB3 NRG2 -0.12 -0.28 0.22 EPHA4 EFNB3 -0.16 -0.14 EPHA7 EFNA3 -0.15 0.21 -0.25 FGFR3 FGF10 0.29 -0.17 MERTK GAS6 -0.16 -0.13 -0.34 EPHB2 EFNB3 0.28 -0.20 EPHA7 EFNA5 -0.16 0.19 -0.25 EPHA4 EFNA1 0.10 -0.21 EPHA4 EFNB1 -0.16 0.18 0.01 EPHA4 EFNA5 0.14 -0.21 EPHA4 EFNA3 -0.16 0.04 0.01 KIT KITLG 0.26 -0.25 EPHA4 EFNB3 -0.16 -0.14 0.01 EGFR EGF -0.19 -0.26 PDGFRB PDGFD -0.17 0.19 -0.19 ERBB3 NRG2 -0.12 -0.28 EGFR EGF -0.19 -0.26 0.52 FGFR3 FGF1 -0.07 -0.28 ERBB3 BTC -0.24 -0.28 0.22 ERBB3 BTC -0.24 -0.28 FGFR3 FGF9 -0.28 0.68 -0.09 TYRO3 GAS6 -0.37 -0.36 TYRO3 GAS6 -0.37 -0.36 -0.27 EPHB2 EFNB1 -0.45 -0.42 EPHB2 EFNB1 -0.45 -0.42 -0.11 MET HGF -0.07 -0.48 EPHA7 EFNA1 -0.65 0.50 -0.25 ERBB3 NRG1 0.08 -0.68 EPHB2 EFNB2 -0.66 0.37 -0.11 FGFR3 FGF2 0.14 -0.76 Supplementary Table 6 no PV no PV with PV Rec. phos. Receptor Ligand Rec. phos. Rec. expr. Rec. phos. Receptor Ligand Rec. phos. versus Rec. versus Lig. versus Lig. versus Rec. versus Lig. expr. expr. expr. expr.* expr.* -0.09 ERBB4 NRG1 0.59 0.19 0.52 AXL GAS6 0.64 -0.19 ERBB4 BTC 0.52 0.60 0.52 EPHA2 EFNA3 0.58 -0.09 ERBB4 NRG3 0.45 0.81 0.52 FGFR3 FGF13 0.57 0.48 ERBB4 NRG2 0.44 0.55 0.52 FGFR1 FGF12 0.51 0.52 ERBB4 HBEGF 0.40 0.15 0.52 FGFR1 FGF3 0.50 -0.09 ERBB4 NRG4 0.38 0.58 0.52 FGFR3 FGF10 0.46 -0.09 ERBB4 EREG -0.10 0.25 0.52 FGFR2 FGF3 0.46 -0.09 EGFR AREG 0.46 0.70 0.52 EPHA2 EFNA4 0.45 0.52 EGFR HBEGF 0.39 0.52 0.52 ERBB4 NRG3 0.40 -0.09 EGFR BTC 0.25 0.73 0.52 EGFR HBEGF 0.40 -0.09 EGFR EPGN 0.15 0.69 0.52 EGFR TGFA 0.40 -0.09 EGFR EREG 0.02 0.24 0.52 FGFR2 FGF6 0.38 -0.09 EGFR TGFA -0.10 0.33 0.52 FGFR2 FGF17 0.38 0.52 EGFR EGF -0.19 -0.26 0.52 FGFR2 FGF12 0.37 0.52 AXL GAS6 0.65 0.82 0.48 EGFR EREG 0.36 -0.09 INSR INS 0.06 -0.02 0.29 FGFR1 FGF13 0.36 0.52 KIT KITLG 0.26 -0.25 0.28 MST1R MST1 0.33 0.26 KIT CLEC11A -0.09 0.05 0.28 EPHA2 EFNA2 0.29 0.26 NTRK1 NTF4 0.25 0.59 0.26 ERBB4 NRG4 0.28 0.52 NTRK1 NGF 0.09 0.58 0.26 FGFR2 FGF13 0.26 0.52 NTRK1 NTF3 -0.09 0.25 0.26 ERBB4 NRG1 0.26 0.21 IGF1R IGF1 0.39 0.40 0.24 ERBB4 HBEGF 0.24 0.52 IGF1R INS 0.27 0.19 0.24 ERBB4 NRG2 0.24 0.16 IGF1R IGF2 0.24 0.19 0.24 FGFR1 FGF17 0.24 -0.25 MET HGF -0.07 -0.48 0.23 FGFR2 FGF10 0.24 -0.25 ERBB3 NRG1 0.08 -0.68 0.22 FGFR2 FGF11 0.24 0.24 ERBB3 NRG2 -0.12 -0.28 0.22 ERBB4 BTC 0.22 0.21 ERBB3 BTC -0.24 -0.28 0.22 FGFR1 FGF6 0.22 -0.11 FLT4 FIGF 0.12 0.54 0.21 FGFR2 FGF8 0.21 0.52 FLT4 VEGFC -0.11 0.38 0.21 FGFR3 FGF2 0.19 0.16 TEK ANGPT2 0.39 0.51 0.16 FGFR2 FGF19 0.18 0.52 TEK ANGPTL1 0.12 0.24 0.16 NTRK2 BDNF 0.17 0.26 TEK ANGPT1 -0.02 0.31 0.16 FGFR1 FGF1 0.17 0.01 EPHA4 EFNB2 0.45 0.25 0.01 FGFR1 FGF10 0.16 -0.09 EPHA4 EFNA2 0.19 -0.12 0.01 KIT CLEC11A 0.16 0.16 EPHA4 EFNA5 0.14 -0.21 0.01 FGFR2 FGF4 0.15 0.52 EPHA4 EFNA1 0.10 -0.21 0.01 FGFR1 FGF19 0.15 -0.25 EPHA4 EFNA4 -0.05 0.15 0.01 FGFR2 FGF16 0.15 -0.25 EPHA4 EFNB1 -0.16 0.18 0.01 FGFR2 FGF18 0.14 0.24 EPHA4 EFNA3 -0.16 0.04 0.01 FGFR1 FGF11 0.13 0.52 EPHA4 EFNB3 -0.16 -0.14 0.01 FGFR2 FGF1 0.10 0.24 FGFR3 FGF13 0.66 0.02 -0.09 FGFR1 FGF16 0.10 -0.19 FGFR3 FGF10 0.29 -0.17 -0.09 EPHB2 EFNB1 0.09 0.01 FGFR3 FGF12 0.18 0.24 -0.09 PDGFRB PDGFB 0.09 0.01 FGFR3 FGF2 0.14 -0.76 -0.09 FGFR1 FGF2 0.09 0.52 FGFR3 FGF4 0.08 0.78 -0.09 FLT1 VEGFA 0.07 0.28 FGFR3 FGF11 -0.01 0.72 -0.09 FLT1 PGF 0.07 0.01 FGFR3 FGF8 -0.03 0.88 -0.09 EGFR AREG 0.04 -0.09 FGFR3 FGF18 -0.03 0.72 -0.09 EPHA4 EFNB3 0.03 -0.25 FGFR3 FGF17 -0.05 0.82 -0.09 FGFR2 FGF2 0.03 0.29 FGFR3 FGF14 -0.05 0.80 -0.09 FGFR1 FGF18 0.02 -0.19 FGFR3 FGF1 -0.07 -0.28 -0.09 NTRK2 NTF4 0.02 0.01 FGFR3 FGF16 -0.09 0.72 -0.09 FGFR3 FGF18 0.02 -0.34 FGFR3 FGF19 -0.11 0.77 -0.09 FGFR1 FGF4 0.02 0.01 FGFR3 FGF5 -0.12 0.72 -0.09 FGFR2 FGF7 0.00 -0.09 FGFR3 FGF9 -0.28 0.68 -0.09 FGFR3 FGF4 -0.01 -0.11 EPHB2 EFNB3 0.28 -0.20 -0.11 EPHA2 EFNA1 -0.01 0.01 EPHB2 EFNB1 -0.45 -0.42 -0.11 EGFR EPGN -0.02 0.01 EPHB2 EFNB2 -0.66 0.37 -0.11 FGFR2 FGF5 -0.03 0.28 PDGFRB PDGFB 0.25 0.86 -0.19 FGFR2 FGF14 -0.03 0.52 PDGFRB PDGFD -0.17 0.19 -0.19 FGFR2 FGF9 -0.03 0.22 MST1R MST1 0.35 -0.04 -0.19 EPHA4 EFNB2 -0.06 -0.09 EPHA7 EFNA4 0.14 0.00 -0.25 EPHB2 EFNB3 -0.06 0.22 EPHA7 EFNA2 0.11 0.42 -0.25 FGFR1 FGF5 -0.07 -0.27 EPHA7 EFNA3 -0.15 0.21 -0.25 NTRK2 NTF3 -0.07 -0.11 EPHA7 EFNA5 -0.16 0.19 -0.25 FGFR1 FGF9 -0.07 0.23 EPHA7 EFNA1 -0.65 0.50 -0.25 EPHA4 EFNA5 -0.08 0.22 TYRO3 GAS6 -0.37 -0.36 -0.27 FGFR3 FGF1 -0.09 -0.09 MERTK GAS6 -0.16 -0.13 -0.34 FGFR3 FGF14 -0.09 FGFR3 FGF8 -0.10 ERBB4 EREG -0.11 EPHA4 EFNB1 -0.12 FGFR3 FGF11 -0.12 ERBB3 BTC -0.13 FGFR1 FGF14 -0.13 FLT4 FIGF -0.14 FGFR3 FGF17 -0.14 FGFR3 FGF12 -0.15 EGFR BTC -0.15 IGF1R IGF1 -0.16 FGFR3 FGF16 -0.16 TYRO3 GAS6 -0.18 KIT KITLG -0.18 FGFR3 FGF5 -0.18 MET HGF -0.20 NTRK3 NTF3 -0.22 TEK ANGPT2 -0.22 ERBB3 NRG2 -0.23 EPHA2 EFNA5 -0.23 IGF1R IGF2 -0.23 EPHA4 EFNA4 -0.28 EPHA4 EFNA3 -0.29 PDGFRB PDGFD -0.30 ERBB3 NRG1 -0.30 EGFR EGF -0.31 TEK ANGPT1 -0.32 FGFR3 FGF19 -0.33 IGF1R INS -0.34 EPHA4 EFNA1 -0.35 FGFR3 FGF9 -0.37 NTRK3 NTF4 -0.38 FLT4 VEGFC -0.40 MERTK GAS6 -0.40 EPHA4 EFNA2 -0.43 ERBB2 NRG1 -0.43 EPHB2 EFNB2 -0.44 TEK ANGPTL1 -0.48 INSR INS -0.48 FLT3 FLT3LG -0.57 FLT1 VEGFB -0.58 with PV with PV with PV Rec.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fgf17b and FGF18 Have Different Midbrain Regulatory Properties from Fgf8b Or Activated FGF Receptors Aimin Liu1,2, James Y
    Research article 6175 FGF17b and FGF18 have different midbrain regulatory properties from FGF8b or activated FGF receptors Aimin Liu1,2, James Y. H. Li2, Carrie Bromleigh2, Zhimin Lao2, Lee A. Niswander1 and Alexandra L. Joyner2,* 1Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Developmental Biology Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA 2Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Skirball Institute of Biomolecular Medicine, Departments of Cell Biology, and Physiology and Neuroscience, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY 10016, USA *Author for correspondence (e-mail: [email protected]) Accepted 28 August 2003 Development 130, 6175-6185 Published by The Company of Biologists 2003 doi:10.1242/dev.00845 Summary Early patterning of the vertebrate midbrain and region in the midbrain, correlating with cerebellum cerebellum is regulated by a mid/hindbrain organizer that development. By contrast, FGF17b and FGF18 mimic produces three fibroblast growth factors (FGF8, FGF17 FGF8a by causing expansion of the midbrain and and FGF18). The mechanism by which each FGF upregulating midbrain gene expression. This result is contributes to patterning the midbrain, and induces a consistent with Fgf17 and Fgf18 being expressed in the cerebellum in rhombomere 1 (r1) is not clear. We and midbrain and not just in r1 as Fgf8 is. Third, analysis of others have found that FGF8b can transform the midbrain gene expression in mouse brain explants with beads soaked into a cerebellum fate, whereas FGF8a can promote in FGF8b or FGF17b showed that the distinct activities of midbrain development. In this study we used a chick FGF17b and FGF8b are not due to differences in the electroporation assay and in vitro mouse brain explant amount of FGF17b protein produced in vivo.
    [Show full text]
  • Epha4/Tie2 Crosstalk Regulates Leptomeningeal Collateral Remodeling Following Ischemic Stroke
    EphA4/Tie2 crosstalk regulates leptomeningeal collateral remodeling following ischemic stroke Benjamin Okyere, … , John B. Matson, Michelle H. Theus J Clin Invest. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI131493. Research In-Press Preview Neuroscience Vascular biology Leptomeningeal anastomoses or pial collateral vessels play a critical role in cerebral blood flow (CBF) restoration following ischemic stroke. The magnitude of this adaptive response is postulated to be controlled by the endothelium, although the underlying molecular mechanisms remain under investigation. Here we demonstrated that endothelial genetic deletion, using EphA4f/f/Tie2-Cre and EphA4f/f/VeCahderin-CreERT2 mice and vessel painting strategies, implicated EphA4 receptor tyrosine kinase as a major suppressor of pial collateral remodeling, CBF and functional recovery following permanent middle cerebral artery occlusion. Pial collateral remodeling is limited by the cross talk between EphA4-Tie2 signaling in vascular endothelial cells, which is mediated through p-Akt regulation. Furthermore, peptide inhibition of EphA4 resulted in acceleration of the pial arteriogenic response. Our findings demonstrate EphA4 is a negative regulator of Tie2 receptor signaling which limits pial collateral arteriogenesis following cerebrovascular occlusion. Therapeutic targeting of EphA4 and/or Tie2 represents an attractive new strategy for improving collateral function, neural tissue health and functional recovery following ischemic stroke. Find the latest version: https://jci.me/131493/pdf 1 EphA4/Tie2
    [Show full text]
  • Fgf8 Is Mutated in Zebrafish Acerebellar
    Development 125, 2381-2395 (1998) 2381 Printed in Great Britain © The Company of Biologists Limited 1998 DEV1265 Fgf8 is mutated in zebrafish acerebellar (ace) mutants and is required for maintenance of midbrain-hindbrain boundary development and somitogenesis Frank Reifers1, Heike Böhli1, Emily C. Walsh2, Phillip H. Crossley2, Didier Y. R. Stainier2 and Michael Brand1,* 1Department of Neurobiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 364, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany 2Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143-0554, USA *Author for correspondence (e-mail: [email protected]) Accepted 2 April; published on WWW 3 June 1998 SUMMARY We describe the isolation of zebrafish Fgf8 and its gastrulation, and that Fgf8 functions later during expression during gastrulation, somitogenesis, fin bud and somitogenesis to polarize the midbrain. Fgf8 is also early brain development. By demonstrating genetic linkage expressed in a dorsoventral gradient during gastrulation and by analysing the structure of the Fgf8 gene, we show and ectopically expressed Fgf8 can dorsalize embryos. that acerebellar is a zebrafish Fgf8 mutation that may Nevertheless, acerebellar mutants show only mild inactivate Fgf8 function. Homozygous acerebellar embryos dorsoventral patterning defects. Also, in spite of the lack a cerebellum and the midbrain-hindbrain boundary prominent role suggested for Fgf8 in limb development, the organizer. Fgf8 function is required to maintain, but not pectoral fins are largely unaffected in the mutants. Fgf8 is initiate, expression of Pax2.1 and other marker genes in this therefore required in development of several important area. We show that Fgf8 and Pax2.1 are activated in signaling centers in the zebrafish embryo, but may be adjacent domains that only later become overlapping, and redundant or dispensable for others.
    [Show full text]
  • ARTICLES Fibroblast Growth Factors 1, 2, 17, and 19 Are The
    0031-3998/07/6103-0267 PEDIATRIC RESEARCH Vol. 61, No. 3, 2007 Copyright © 2007 International Pediatric Research Foundation, Inc. Printed in U.S.A. ARTICLES Fibroblast Growth Factors 1, 2, 17, and 19 Are the Predominant FGF Ligands Expressed in Human Fetal Growth Plate Cartilage PAVEL KREJCI, DEBORAH KRAKOW, PERTCHOUI B. MEKIKIAN, AND WILLIAM R. WILCOX Medical Genetics Institute [P.K., D.K., P.B.M., W.R.W.], Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California 90048; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology [D.K.] and Department of Pediatrics [W.R.W.], UCLA School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California 90095 ABSTRACT: Fibroblast growth factors (FGF) regulate bone growth, (G380R) or TD (K650E) mutations (4–6). When expressed at but their expression in human cartilage is unclear. Here, we deter- physiologic levels, FGFR3-G380R required, like its wild-type mined the expression of entire FGF family in human fetal growth counterpart, ligand for activation (7). Similarly, in vitro cul- plate cartilage. Using reverse transcriptase PCR, the transcripts for tivated human TD chondrocytes as well as chondrocytes FGF1, 2, 5, 8–14, 16–19, and 21 were found. However, only FGF1, isolated from Fgfr3-K644M mice had an identical time course 2, 17, and 19 were detectable at the protein level. By immunohisto- of Fgfr3 activation compared with wild-type chondrocytes and chemistry, FGF17 and 19 were uniformly expressed within the showed no receptor activation in the absence of ligand (8,9). growth plate. In contrast, FGF1 was found only in proliferating and hypertrophic chondrocytes whereas FGF2 localized predominantly to Despite the importance of the FGF ligand for activation of the resting and proliferating cartilage.
    [Show full text]
  • Disruption of Fibroblast Growth Factor Signal
    Cancer Therapy: Preclinical Disruption of Fibroblast Growth Factor Signal Pathway Inhibits the Growth of Synovial Sarcomas: Potential Application of Signal Inhibitors to MolecularTarget Therapy Ta t s u y a I s hi b e , 1, 2 Tomitaka Nakayama,2 Ta k e s h i O k a m o t o, 1, 2 Tomoki Aoyama,1Koichi Nishijo,1, 2 Kotaro Roberts Shibata,1, 2 Ya s u ko Shim a ,1, 2 Satoshi Nagayama,3 Toyomasa Katagiri,4 Yusuke Nakamura, 4 Takashi Nakamura,2 andJunya Toguchida 1 Abstract Purpose: Synovial sarcoma is a soft tissue sarcoma, the growth regulatory mechanisms of which are unknown.We investigatedthe involvement of fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signals in synovial sarcoma andevaluatedthe therapeutic effect of inhibiting the FGF signal. Experimental Design:The expression of 22 FGF and4 FGF receptor (FGFR) genes in18prima- ry tumors andfive cell lines of synovial sarcoma were analyzedby reverse transcription-PCR. Effects of recombinant FGF2, FGF8, andFGF18 for the activation of mitogen-activatedprotein kinase (MAPK) andthe growth of synovial sarcoma cell lines were analyzed.Growth inhibitory effects of FGFR inhibitors on synovial sarcoma cell lines were investigated in vitro and in vivo. Results: Synovial sarcoma cell lines expressedmultiple FGF genes especially those expressed in neural tissues, among which FGF8 showedgrowth stimulatory effects in all synovial sarcoma cell lines. FGF signals in synovial sarcoma induced the phosphorylation of extracellular signal ^ regulatedkinase (ERK1/2) andp38MAPK but not c-Jun NH 2-terminal kinase. Disruption of the FGF signaling pathway in synovial sarcoma by specific inhibitors of FGFR causedcell cycle ar- rest leading to significant growth inhibition both in vitro and in vivo.Growthinhibitionbythe FGFR inhibitor was associatedwith a down-regulation of phosphorylatedERK1/2 but not p38MAPK, andan ERK kinase inhibitor also showedgrowth inhibitory effects for synovial sar- coma, indicating that the growth stimulatory effect of FGF was transmitted through the ERK1/2.
    [Show full text]
  • Different Fgfs Have Distinct Roles in Regulating Neurogenesis After Spinal Cord Injury in Zebrafish Yona Goldshmit1,2, Jean Kitty K
    Goldshmit et al. Neural Development (2018) 13:24 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13064-018-0122-9 RESEARCHARTICLE Open Access Different Fgfs have distinct roles in regulating neurogenesis after spinal cord injury in zebrafish Yona Goldshmit1,2, Jean Kitty K. Y. Tang1, Ashley L. Siegel1, Phong D. Nguyen1, Jan Kaslin1, Peter D. Currie1 and Patricia R. Jusuf1,3* Abstract Background: Despite conserved developmental processes and organization of the vertebrate central nervous system, only some vertebrates including zebrafish can efficiently regenerate neural damage including after spinal cord injury. The mammalian spinal cord shows very limited regeneration and neurogenesis, resulting in permanent life-long functional impairment. Therefore, there is an urgent need to identify the cellular and molecular mechanisms that can drive efficient vertebrate neurogenesis following injury. A key pathway implicated in zebrafish neurogenesis is fibroblast growth factor signaling. Methods: In the present study we investigated the roles of distinctfibroblastgrowthfactormembersandtheir receptors in facilitating different aspects of neural development and regeneration at different timepoints following spinal cord injury. After spinal cord injury in adults and during larval development, loss and/or gain of Fgf signaling was combined with immunohistochemistry, in situ hybridization and transgenes marking motor neuron populations in in vivo zebrafish and in vitro mammalian PC12 cell culture models. Results: Fgf3 drives neurogenesis of Islet1 expressing motor neuron subtypes and mediate axonogenesis in cMet expressing motor neuron subtypes. We also demonstrate that the role of Fgf members are not necessarily simple recapitulating development. During development Fgf2, Fgf3 and Fgf8 mediate neurogenesis of Islet1 expressing neurons and neuronal sprouting of both, Islet1 and cMet expressing motor neurons.
    [Show full text]
  • A Computational Approach for Defining a Signature of Β-Cell Golgi Stress in Diabetes Mellitus
    Page 1 of 781 Diabetes A Computational Approach for Defining a Signature of β-Cell Golgi Stress in Diabetes Mellitus Robert N. Bone1,6,7, Olufunmilola Oyebamiji2, Sayali Talware2, Sharmila Selvaraj2, Preethi Krishnan3,6, Farooq Syed1,6,7, Huanmei Wu2, Carmella Evans-Molina 1,3,4,5,6,7,8* Departments of 1Pediatrics, 3Medicine, 4Anatomy, Cell Biology & Physiology, 5Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, the 6Center for Diabetes & Metabolic Diseases, and the 7Herman B. Wells Center for Pediatric Research, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202; 2Department of BioHealth Informatics, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, 46202; 8Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN 46202. *Corresponding Author(s): Carmella Evans-Molina, MD, PhD ([email protected]) Indiana University School of Medicine, 635 Barnhill Drive, MS 2031A, Indianapolis, IN 46202, Telephone: (317) 274-4145, Fax (317) 274-4107 Running Title: Golgi Stress Response in Diabetes Word Count: 4358 Number of Figures: 6 Keywords: Golgi apparatus stress, Islets, β cell, Type 1 diabetes, Type 2 diabetes 1 Diabetes Publish Ahead of Print, published online August 20, 2020 Diabetes Page 2 of 781 ABSTRACT The Golgi apparatus (GA) is an important site of insulin processing and granule maturation, but whether GA organelle dysfunction and GA stress are present in the diabetic β-cell has not been tested. We utilized an informatics-based approach to develop a transcriptional signature of β-cell GA stress using existing RNA sequencing and microarray datasets generated using human islets from donors with diabetes and islets where type 1(T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) had been modeled ex vivo. To narrow our results to GA-specific genes, we applied a filter set of 1,030 genes accepted as GA associated.
    [Show full text]
  • Differential Expression of PDGFD in Cancers of the Breast
    Differential expression of platelet-derived growth factor D in cancers of the breast. Shahan Mamoor, MS1 [email protected] East Islip, NY 11730 Breast cancer affects women at relatively high frequency1. We mined published microarray datasets2,3 to determine in an unbiased fashion and at the systems level genes most differentially expressed in the primary tumors of patients with breast cancer. We report here significant differential expression of the gene encoding platelet-derived growth factor D, PDGFD, when comparing primary tumors of the breast to the tissue of origin, the normal breast. PDGFD was also differentially expressed in the tumor cells of patients with triple negative breast cancer. PDGFD mRNA was present at significantly lower quantities in tumors of the breast as compared to normal breast tissue. Analysis of human survival data revealed that expression of PDGFD in primary tumors of the breast was correlated with overall survival in patients with basal and luminal A subtype cancer, demonstrating a relationship between primary tumor expression of a differentially expressed gene and patient survival outcomes influenced by molecular subtype. PDGFD may be of relevance to initiation, maintenance or progression of cancers of the female breast. Keywords: breast cancer, PDGFD, platelet-derived growth factor D, systems biology of breast cancer, targeted therapeutics in breast cancer. 1 Invasive breast cancer is diagnosed in over a quarter of a million women in the United States each year1 and in 2018, breast cancer was the leading cause of cancer death in women worldwide4. While patients with localized breast cancer are provided a 99% 5-year survival rate, patients with regional breast cancer, cancer that has spread to lymph nodes or nearby structures, are provided an 86% 5-year survival rate5,6.
    [Show full text]
  • Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Demonstrates the Molecular and Cellular Reprogramming of Metastatic Lung Adenocarcinoma
    ARTICLE https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16164-1 OPEN Single-cell RNA sequencing demonstrates the molecular and cellular reprogramming of metastatic lung adenocarcinoma Nayoung Kim 1,2,3,13, Hong Kwan Kim4,13, Kyungjong Lee 5,13, Yourae Hong 1,6, Jong Ho Cho4, Jung Won Choi7, Jung-Il Lee7, Yeon-Lim Suh8,BoMiKu9, Hye Hyeon Eum 1,2,3, Soyean Choi 1, Yoon-La Choi6,10,11, Je-Gun Joung1, Woong-Yang Park 1,2,6, Hyun Ae Jung12, Jong-Mu Sun12, Se-Hoon Lee12, ✉ ✉ Jin Seok Ahn12, Keunchil Park12, Myung-Ju Ahn 12 & Hae-Ock Lee 1,2,3,6 1234567890():,; Advanced metastatic cancer poses utmost clinical challenges and may present molecular and cellular features distinct from an early-stage cancer. Herein, we present single-cell tran- scriptome profiling of metastatic lung adenocarcinoma, the most prevalent histological lung cancer type diagnosed at stage IV in over 40% of all cases. From 208,506 cells populating the normal tissues or early to metastatic stage cancer in 44 patients, we identify a cancer cell subtype deviating from the normal differentiation trajectory and dominating the metastatic stage. In all stages, the stromal and immune cell dynamics reveal ontological and functional changes that create a pro-tumoral and immunosuppressive microenvironment. Normal resident myeloid cell populations are gradually replaced with monocyte-derived macrophages and dendritic cells, along with T-cell exhaustion. This extensive single-cell analysis enhances our understanding of molecular and cellular dynamics in metastatic lung cancer and reveals potential diagnostic and therapeutic targets in cancer-microenvironment interactions. 1 Samsung Genome Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul 06351, Korea.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Transcription and Secretion Novel Regulator of Angiopoietin-Like Protein A
    Acute-Phase Protein α1-Antitrypsin−−A Novel Regulator of Angiopoietin-like Protein 4 Transcription and Secretion This information is current as Eileen Frenzel, Sabine Wrenger, Stephan Immenschuh, of September 28, 2021. Rembert Koczulla, Ravi Mahadeva, H. Joachim Deeg, Charles A. Dinarello, Tobias Welte, A. Mario Q. Marcondes and Sabina Janciauskiene J Immunol 2014; 192:5354-5362; Prepublished online 23 April 2014; Downloaded from doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.1400378 http://www.jimmunol.org/content/192/11/5354 Supplementary http://www.jimmunol.org/content/suppl/2014/04/23/jimmunol.140037 http://www.jimmunol.org/ Material 8.DCSupplemental References This article cites 56 articles, 25 of which you can access for free at: http://www.jimmunol.org/content/192/11/5354.full#ref-list-1 Why The JI? Submit online. by guest on September 28, 2021 • Rapid Reviews! 30 days* from submission to initial decision • No Triage! Every submission reviewed by practicing scientists • Fast Publication! 4 weeks from acceptance to publication *average Subscription Information about subscribing to The Journal of Immunology is online at: http://jimmunol.org/subscription Permissions Submit copyright permission requests at: http://www.aai.org/About/Publications/JI/copyright.html Email Alerts Receive free email-alerts when new articles cite this article. Sign up at: http://jimmunol.org/alerts The Journal of Immunology is published twice each month by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc., 1451 Rockville Pike, Suite 650, Rockville, MD 20852 Copyright © 2014 by The American Association of Immunologists, Inc. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0022-1767 Online ISSN: 1550-6606. The Journal of Immunology Acute-Phase Protein a1-Antitrypsin—A Novel Regulator of Angiopoietin-like Protein 4 Transcription and Secretion Eileen Frenzel,* Sabine Wrenger,* Stephan Immenschuh,† Rembert Koczulla,‡ Ravi Mahadeva,x H.
    [Show full text]
  • Angiocrine Endothelium: from Physiology to Cancer Jennifer Pasquier1,2*, Pegah Ghiabi2, Lotf Chouchane3,4,5, Kais Razzouk1, Shahin Rafi3 and Arash Rafi1,2,3
    Pasquier et al. J Transl Med (2020) 18:52 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-020-02244-9 Journal of Translational Medicine REVIEW Open Access Angiocrine endothelium: from physiology to cancer Jennifer Pasquier1,2*, Pegah Ghiabi2, Lotf Chouchane3,4,5, Kais Razzouk1, Shahin Rafi3 and Arash Rafi1,2,3 Abstract The concept of cancer as a cell-autonomous disease has been challenged by the wealth of knowledge gathered in the past decades on the importance of tumor microenvironment (TM) in cancer progression and metastasis. The sig- nifcance of endothelial cells (ECs) in this scenario was initially attributed to their role in vasculogenesis and angiogen- esis that is critical for tumor initiation and growth. Nevertheless, the identifcation of endothelial-derived angiocrine factors illustrated an alternative non-angiogenic function of ECs contributing to both physiological and pathological tissue development. Gene expression profling studies have demonstrated distinctive expression patterns in tumor- associated endothelial cells that imply a bilateral crosstalk between tumor and its endothelium. Recently, some of the molecular determinants of this reciprocal interaction have been identifed which are considered as potential targets for developing novel anti-angiocrine therapeutic strategies. Keywords: Angiocrine, Endothelium, Cancer, Cancer microenvironment, Angiogenesis Introduction of blood vessels in initiation of tumor growth and stated Metastatic disease accounts for about 90% of patient that in the absence of such angiogenesis, tumors can- mortality. Te difculty in controlling and eradicating not expand their mass or display a metastatic phenotype metastasis might be related to the heterotypic interaction [7]. Based on this theory, many investigators assumed of tumor and its microenvironment [1].
    [Show full text]
  • The Biology of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Implications for Genomic and Immune Therapies Galina Khemlina1,4*, Sadakatsu Ikeda2,3 and Razelle Kurzrock2
    Khemlina et al. Molecular Cancer (2017) 16:149 DOI 10.1186/s12943-017-0712-x REVIEW Open Access The biology of Hepatocellular carcinoma: implications for genomic and immune therapies Galina Khemlina1,4*, Sadakatsu Ikeda2,3 and Razelle Kurzrock2 Abstract Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common type of primary liver cancer, is a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. It is highly refractory to most systemic therapies. Recently, significant progress has been made in uncovering genomic alterations in HCC, including potentially targetable aberrations. The most common molecular anomalies in this malignancy are mutations in the TERT promoter, TP53, CTNNB1, AXIN1, ARID1A, CDKN2A and CCND1 genes. PTEN loss at the protein level is also frequent. Genomic portfolios stratify by risk factors as follows: (i) CTNNB1 with alcoholic cirrhosis; and (ii) TP53 with hepatitis B virus-induced cirrhosis. Activating mutations in CTNNB1 and inactivating mutations in AXIN1 both activate WNT signaling. Alterations in this pathway, as well as in TP53 and the cell cycle machinery, and in the PI3K/Akt/mTor axis (the latter activated in the presence of PTEN loss), as well as aberrant angiogenesis and epigenetic anomalies, appear to be major events in HCC. Many of these abnormalities may be pharmacologically tractable. Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors is also emerging as an important treatment option. Indeed, 82% of patients express PD-L1 (immunohistochemistry) and response rates to anti-PD-1 treatment are about 19%, and include about 5% complete remissions as well as durable benefit in some patients. Biomarker-matched trials are still limited in this disease, and many of the genomic alterations in HCC remain challenging to target.
    [Show full text]