Skip to main content
  • AACR Journals
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Focus on Radiation Oncology
      • Novel Combinations
      • Reviews
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • First Disclosures
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Journals
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Focus on Radiation Oncology
      • Novel Combinations
      • Reviews
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • First Disclosures
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Research Articles: Targets

Targeting changes in cancer: assessing pathway stability by comparing pathway gene expression coherence levels in tumor and normal tissues

Ruili Huang, Anders Wallqvist and David G. Covell
Ruili Huang
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Anders Wallqvist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
David G. Covell
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0239 Published September 2006
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine gene expression changes occurring in cancer from a pathway perspective by analyzing the level of pathway coherence in tumor tissues in comparison with their normal counterparts. Instability in pathway regulation patterns can be considered either as a result of or as a contributing factor to genetic instability and possibly cancer. Our analysis has identified pathways that show a significant change in their coherence level in tumor tissues, some of which are tumor type specific, indicating novel targets for cancer type–specific therapies. Pathways are found to have a general tendency to lose their gene expression coherence in tumor tissues when compared with normal tissues, especially for signaling pathways. The selective growth advantage of cancer cells over normal cells seems to originate from their preserved control over vital pathways to ensure survival and altered signaling, allowing excessive proliferation. We have additionally investigated the tissue-related instability of pathways, providing valuable clues to the cellular processes underlying the tumorigenesis and/or growth of specific cancer types. Pathways that contain known cancer genes (i.e., “cancer pathways”) show significantly greater instability and are more likely to become incoherent in tumor tissues. Finally, we have proposed strategies to target instability (i.e., pathways that are prone to changes) by identifying compound groups that show selective activity against pathways with a detectable coherence change in cancer. These results can serve as guidelines for selecting novel agents that have the potential to specifically target a particular pathway that has relevance in cancer. [Mol Cancer Ther 2006;5(9):2417–27]

Keywords:
  • Pathway
  • gene expression
  • coregulation
  • tumor tissues
  • drug discovery

Introduction

Cancer is essentially a disease arising from an accumulation of genetic abnormalities (1–3), which are thought to participate in neoplastic development and, in some cases, the development of chemotherapeutic resistance (4–6). Many genes have been implicated in the genesis of various cancers (1, 7). In the process of carcinogenesis, some are found to be mutated whereas others tend to exhibit dysregulated levels of expression (8–11). Both mutation status and RNA or protein expression levels have proved valuable for the development of cancer diagnostic assays, particularly for prediction of prognosis. However, a diagnostic gene expression pattern does not necessarily have a causative role in carcinogenesis (12–17).

A current concept suggests that most genes act as part of one or more pathways. This concept is supported by the frequent observation that qualitative or quantitative changes in the expression of certain genes lead to characteristic cancer phenotypes (18, 19). This observation is supported by the elucidation of distinct biochemical functions for altered cancer genes (20–23). The notion of “pathways” (24) is a convenient abstraction that can be considered in isolation and has been found to be extremely useful in describing and understanding the inner workings of cellular biology (25, 26). The importance of pathways in the context of the entire cellular system is highlighted by the challenges faced in drug discovery today (25, 27), hence the notion of a “systems” approach has gained momentum in identifying pathways related to a disease and suggesting secondary effects of drugs (28–31). The use of pathways also provides a central reference to a more systematic view of biological processes (24, 32, 33), which, when combined with the latest high-throughput experimental and computational methods, has been a driving force for many breakthroughs in systems biology and opportunities to improve the drug discovery process (34–36).

A focused analysis on changes in the expression patterns of specific cellular pathways can reveal biological insights that are not easily apparent from variations in individual genes. Various computational methods have been proposed to analyze gene expression patterns within predefined pathways (37–39). We have previously presented strategies to evaluate the level of coexpression in pathways or functionally related groups of genes using gene expression patterns measured in the National Cancer Institute's 60-cell tumor screen (40) and related pathway gene expressions to differential cytotoxicity of potential anticancer agents screened in the same cell lines and their mechanisms of action (41). The purpose of this study is to extend our analysis to include gene expression data obtained from human tumor and normal tissue samples and evaluate these observations for the purpose of assessing which pathways are deregulated in cancer, and to apply these results toward the development of a rationale for selecting pathway-specific chemo-interventions. The ability to identify and disrupt targets that are characteristic of cancer cells without affecting normal cells is crucial for successful anticancer therapy and is the essence of this investigation. Our analysis will focus on the oligonucleotide microarray samples publicly available at the Whitehead site,3 which encompass gene expression data measured in 190 patient tumor samples spanning 14 common tumor types (18 subtypes) and 90 normal samples including 12 tissue types (13 subtypes; ref. 42). We have previously applied these data to successfully classify tumor tissue samples (43), with the seminal finding that gene expression profiles alone were sufficient to correctly classify most of the tumor tissues according to cancer type.

Our current study examines this data from a new angle (i.e., the pathway perspective) to compare and contrast pathway features using gene expression profiles obtained from normal and tumor tissues. We have organized the tissue gene expression patterns in terms of the widely used, publicly available gene annotations (pathways or functional categories) defined by Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), BioCarta, and Gene Ontology (GO). The gene expression coherence levels in these pathways have been evaluated using our previously developed methods (41) and compared between tumor and normal samples. Pathways that show a significant change in their cohesiveness, which may be an indication of instability in their gene regulation, are identified. We have, in addition, identified pathways that show specific changes in cohesiveness for certain tumor types, evidence supporting their selection as good targets for developing novel anticancer therapies. The pathways that contain known cancer genes have been examined in particular, and their behavior compared with that of other pathways. Finally, we have applied our previously developed methods that connect pathways to small molecules that putatively disrupt their function (41) in an attempt to propose agents that might selectively target cancer-relevant pathways.

Materials and Methods

Gene Expression Data for Tumor and Normal Tissue Samples

Tissue gene expression data were downloaded from the Whitehead website (42).4 Data were filtered to exclude all signals labeled as “absent” and all negative signals. Signals were then log transformed by taking the natural logarithms to suppress extreme values, and normalized within each array. For each gene, expression measurements across all samples (either tumor or normal) form a data vector. Gene data vectors of length 90 are built for normal tissue samples and 190 for tumor tissue samples. These data vectors were then filtered such that only genes with measurements in at least one third of the normal tissues or tumor tissues were included for further analysis. This leaves 6,258 gene data vectors for normal tissues and 5,232 gene data vectors for tumor tissues in the final data set.

Pathway Gene Expression Coherence or Cohesiveness Measures

The pathway gene expression coherence or cohesiveness level is evaluated for a total of 962 pathways using the KEGG, BioCarta, and GO annotations (see Supplementary data for details),5 following the same procedures as described in an earlier report (40, 41). Briefly, the Kruskal-Wallis H statistic (H-score) is used as a measure of pathway gene expression coherence or cohesiveness to compare intra-pathway and inter-pathway gene-gene correlations. The statistical significance of the H-scores (P values) was established by random permutation tests (41). We consider pathways with H > 3.84 (P < 0.05) as cohesive, and not cohesive otherwise. Cohesiveness of pathways within each particular tissue type (e.g., breast tumor tissue) is calculated using only the gene expression measurements for that particular tissue.

Statistical Significance Evaluation of Changes in Pathway Cohesiveness

Random permutation tests have been conducted to examine the probability of observing “up” and “down” pathways by chance (we define an “up” pathway as a pathway that is not cohesive in normal tissues but has become significantly cohesive in tumor tissues, and a “down” pathway as one that is significantly cohesive in normal tissues but has lost its coherence in tumor tissues). Genes are randomly permutated to generate random pathways. To compare the cohesiveness of each random pathway in tumor versus normal tissues, the total set of 280 tissue samples is also randomly permutated and divided into two sets, containing 190 (number of tumor) and 90 (number of normal) samples each, respectively. The cohesiveness H-score of the pathway within each of the two sets is then calculated and compared. This procedure is repeated 1,000 times and the fractions of up and down pathways were counted. The results in comparison with those observed for the true pathway/tissue systems are summarized in Table 1 . The number of pathways with observed coherence change is significantly higher than random, except for the up pathways.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Significance levels of the number of pathways that have an observable cohesiveness change between tumor and normal tissues

Gene expression coherence in pathways is also evaluated within each specific tumor or normal tissue following previously described methods (40), except that for each tissue type, only the gene expression measurements for that particular tissue are used in the calculations. The number of samples within a tissue type is typically small (10 per tumor and 5 per normal tissue on average), rendering the cohesiveness measures generated therein inherently volatile (tending to have large variations); therefore, additional randomization tests are done to verify the statistical significance of the observations. A thousand random pathways are built as described above, and the cohesiveness of each pathway is evaluated in tissues with samples selected at random from the total pool of 280 samples. The random permutation of tissue samples is repeated 1,000 times for each random pathway and the cohesiveness H-score of the pathway in the random tumor tissue set is compared with that of the random normal tissue set, and the number of up or down pathways counted. For most tissue types, the number of true up or down pathways observed is significantly higher than random, with the exceptions of the number of up pathways observed for breast, bladder, and renal tissues and the number of down pathways for uterus, pancreas, and ovary tissues (see Supplementary Table S1 for detailed results).5 Therefore, the results on these tissue types are not included in our analysis.

Results and Discussion

Coexpression of genes has been observed in certain pathways; however, it is not clear whether any difference exists in the level of pathway gene coexpression between cancer and normal cells. If we assume that coexpression is reflective of coordinated gene regulation, then any change in the level of coexpression in a pathway can be viewed as a change in that pathway regulation, and the propensity of a pathway to changes in regulation may be indicative of instability. The level of gene expression coherence can be evaluated for each pathway annotated by KEGG, BioCarta, or GO (strictly speaking, GO annotates functionally related genes that are not necessarily “pathways” per se; however, we will refer to GO terms as “pathways” in the rest of the text just for convenience), following the same procedures as previously reported (40, 41). Briefly, the Kruskal-Wallis H statistic (H-score) is computed to compare gene-gene expression correlations within a pathway to those between pathways, and used as a measure of pathway gene expression coherence or cohesiveness. We consider pathways with significantly stronger intra-pathway than inter-pathway gene-gene correlations, characterized by a large and positive H-score (P < 0.05), as cohesive, and not cohesive otherwise (see Materials and Methods for details).

Pathway Cohesiveness in Tumor versus Normal Tissues

As an initial assessment of pathway gene expression coherence or cohesiveness in tumor versus normal tissues, all 190 tumor and 90 normal tissue samples are included in computing the H-scores for all three pathway collections (see Supplementary Fig. S1 for pathway H-score distributions).5 Genes in vetted pathways are found to be significantly more coherently expressed than a random set of genes regardless of whether the tissue is normal or tumor bearing [normal, P = 2.52 × 10−4; tumor, P = 4.39 × 10−3 (t test)]. However, a more interesting question is whether differences exist in measures of cohesiveness between normal and tumor tissues for individual pathways. Hence, we examine the extent to which each individual pathway has changed its cohesiveness, what types of pathways they are, and whether they have become more or less cohesive in tumor tissues as compared with normal tissues.

The 962 pathways we have analyzed can be divided into four different categories according to their relative pathway gene expression coherence or cohesiveness in tumor compared with normal tissues (see Supplementary Fig. S2):5 those that are cohesive only in normal tissues (155; 16.1%), those cohesive only in tumor tissues (89; 9.3%), those cohesive in both (101; 10.5%), or those not cohesive in either (617; 64.1%). This implies that whereas the pathway gene expression coherence or cohesiveness level has remained statistically the same for most pathways (10.5% + 64.1% = 74.6%), there are also pathways that have shown a change in their cohesiveness when comparing normal to tumor tissues (16.1% + 9.3% = 25.4%). Moreover, as shown in Supplementary Fig. S25, significantly more pathways have become less cohesive when compared with the number of pathways that have become more cohesive in tumor tissues (16.1% versus 9.3%; P = 5.78 × 10−6, Fisher's exact test). In the remainder of the text, we will refer to pathways that have become significantly cohesive in tumor tissues as up pathways and those that have lost their coherence in tumor tissues as down pathways. Random permutation tests to examine the probability of observing up and down pathways by chance (see Materials and Methods for details) show that our observation of 16% down pathways is significantly higher than random (P = 0.002). Taken together, these results indicate that pathways tend to become less cohesive in tumor tissues than in normal tissues.

KEGG pathways are grouped into five functional categories and BioCarta groups its pathways into 12 different categories of biological processes (Table 2 ). These categories are useful for establishing statistics about the type of pathways that are prone to variations in their pattern of gene regulation. For each of those categories, the number of up pathways is compared with the number of down pathways, and a Fisher's exact test is done to determine if any detected difference is statistically significant. The results are listed in Table 2. In most pathway categories, the number of up pathways is not significantly different from the number of down pathways; however, significantly more down pathways are found in the BioCarta pathway categories “Cell Signaling” and “Cytokines/Chemokines” and the KEGG pathway category “Environmental Information Processing,” which consists mostly of signaling pathways as well. This indicates that signaling pathways, when compared with other pathways, are more likely to lose their cohesiveness in tumor-bearing tissues. This is consistent with the results of our previous pathway analysis using the gene expression data measured across National Cancer Institute's 60 tumor cell lines, where signaling pathways were mostly found not to be cohesive (40). In this earlier study, we had no knowledge of the cohesiveness of signaling pathways in normal tissues; the results obtained here use both normal and tumor tissue gene expressions and show that signaling pathways in normal tissues are not inherently incoherent. They are, in fact, significantly coherently expressed in normal tissues, but this coherence is lost for tumor tissues. The KEGG category of “Genetic Information Processing” is the pathway category that shows the least change in their coherence level (37.5% pathways are cohesive in both; see Table 2). Pathways in this KEGG category had been shown in our earlier study to be among the most cohesive pathways, whereas our current analysis additionally reveals that these pathways are inherently cohesive in normal tissues and have maintained their cohesiveness in tumor tissues.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2.

Pathways categories and their change in gene expression coherence in tumor versus normal tissues

Tissue Type–Specific Pathway Cohesiveness

The pathway gene expression coherence or cohesiveness level was also evaluated within each specific tumor or normal tissue type (see Materials and Methods for details) and was found to be significantly higher than what was expected from random on average (average H-scores are 2.44 for tumor tissues, 1.89 for normal tissues, and 0.18 for random samples; P < 0.05, t test). The number and type of tissues in which a pathway is found to be cohesive can potentially be exploited to postulate connections between tissue-related functions of the pathway and its role in cancer. A number of pathways are found to be cohesive in multiple tissue types, which we consider as “universally cohesive,” whereas others are only cohesive in particular tissue types, which we refer to as “specifically cohesive.” Universally cohesive pathways are probably essential for cell survival in general, whereas pathways that are only cohesive in a tumor or normal tissue might play important roles in tumorigenesis and/or growth, especially for that particular tissue type, and therefore represent potential targets for anticancer therapies. Thirty pathways are found to be cohesive in >50% of the 18 tumor tissue types and 19 pathways found to be cohesive in >50% of the 13 normal tissue types. Fifteen pathways are universally cohesive in both tumor and normal tissues (see Supplementary Table S2)5. Most of these pathways are involved in protein synthesis and energy metabolism. Conversely, the cohesiveness of some pathways seems to be tissue specific. There are 194 such pathways, 90 of which are specifically cohesive in one type of normal tissue (not cohesive in any tumor tissues; Table 3A ) and 104 of which are specifically cohesive in one type of tumor tissue (not cohesive in any normal tissues; Table 3B). These pathways are therefore not only tissue specific but also have a change of cohesiveness when comparing normal and tumor tissues, thus representing interesting targets for anticancer therapy.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 3.

Illustrative examples of tissue-specific cohesive pathways (an extended list can be found in Supplementary Table S3)

Gene Mutations and Tissue Type–Specific Pathway Cohesiveness and Stability

Alterations in three types of genes are thought to be responsible for tumorigenesis: oncogenes, tumor-suppressor genes, and stability genes (7). Mutations in these three classes of genes can occur in the germ line, resulting in hereditary predispositions to cancer, or in single somatic cells, resulting in sporadic tumors. Several pathways that contain these cancer genes are found to be specifically cohesive in tissue types that are consistent with the tumor types implicated by the corresponding cancer genes. The GO term “DNA repair” contains cancer predisposition genes ATM and TP53. TP53 is a tumor-suppressor gene, mutations of which have been found in major hereditary cancers such as breast, sarcoma, adrenal, and brain tumors. Mutations in ATM, a stability gene, have been found in major heredity cancers such as leukemias, lymphomas, and brain tumors. DNA repair is found by our analysis to be specifically cohesive in the central nervous system (glioblastoma) tumor tissue (Table 3B). The GO term “negative regulation of cell proliferation,” which contains the tumor-suppressor gene neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1), is also found to be specifically cohesive in glioblastoma. Mutations in NF1 can result in hereditary predispositions to neurofibroma. The GO term “regulation of cyclin dependent protein kinase activity,” which contains the tumor-suppressor gene PTEN, and the BioCarta pathway “Cell Cycle: G2-M Checkpoint,” which contains the tumor-suppressor gene BRCA1, are both specifically cohesive in mesothelioma tumor tissue. Mutations in PTEN can result in hereditary predispositions to hamartoma (a focal malformation resembling a neoplasm, composed of an overgrowth of mature cells and tissues that normally occur in the affected area), glioma, and uterine cancers, and mutations in BRCA1 to breast and ovarian cancers. Mutations in tumor-suppressor genes EXT1 and EXT2 and stability genes RECQL4 and WRN have all been implicated in hereditary predispositions to bone cancer. The GO terms in which these genes are categorized, “DNA helicase activity” (RECQL4 and WRN) and “endoplasmic reticulum membrane” (EXT1 and EXT2), are found to be specifically cohesive in normal blood tissues but have lost their cohesiveness in tumor tissues.

Other cancer genes are mutated somatically but not inherited in mutant form, and these mutations can result in sporadic tumors. Amplification of the ERBB2 gene has been found in breast and ovarian tumors, and the BioCarta pathway “Role of ERBB2 in Signal Transduction and Oncology” is found to be specifically cohesive in normal uterine tissues but this cohesiveness is not sustained in tumor tissues. Amplification of MYC has been found in lymphomas, neuroblastomas, and small-cell lung cancers. The BioCarta pathway that contains MYC, “Tumor Suppressor Arf Inhibits Ribosomal Biogenesis,” is specifically cohesive in normal germinal tissues, and two other pathways in which MYC participates, the GO term “cell cycle arrest” and the BioCarta pathway “Inhibition of Cellular Proliferation by Gleevec,” are both found to be specifically cohesive in lung (adeno) tissues. Translocations in ABL1 and MLL are characteristic of certain leukemias. The pathways containing these genes that are also specifically cohesive in leukemia include the BioCarta pathway “Lissencephaly gene (LIS1) in neuronal migration and development” (ABL1) and the GO term “GTPase activity” (MLL), which are found to be specifically cohesive in B- and T-cell acute lymphocytic leukemia, respectively. It is worth noting that the recent selective and specific therapies with Gleevec (44) and Erbitux (45) target the BCR/ABL and the epidermal growth factor receptor signaling pathways, respectively.

Pathway Stability as Reflected by Changes in Gene Expression Coherence

Because cancer is a disease closely tied to genetic instability, the relative stability of pathways or pathway gene expression regulation is of great interest. The tendency for some pathways to change their cohesiveness may be a reflection of instability in the regulation of these pathways, which could be either the cause or consequence of cancer, and thus warrants further investigation. As a measure of tissue-related pathway stability, we have calculated for each pathway category the average number of tissue types in which a pathway is found to have changed its cohesiveness, either up or down. A pathway category is considered “generically unstable” if its pathways have changed their cohesiveness in a significantly (P < 0.05, t test) above average number of tissue types, and specifically unstable if their pathways only change their cohesiveness in certain specific tissue types, as shown in Table 4 . For the five KEGG pathway categories, “Environmental Information Processing” is found to be the most generically unstable. This result is consistent with our earlier findings that this pathway category, which consists of mostly signaling pathways, is also significantly enriched in down pathways (i.e., they tend to lose their cohesiveness in cancer). On the other hand, the pathways categorized as metabolic are mostly specifically unstable when compared with the other KEGG pathway categories. The stability of other KEGG pathway categories is not significantly different from average. “Cell Cycle Regulation,” a BioCarta pathway category, is the most specifically unstable of all, with half of its pathways exhibiting no cohesiveness change and each pathway showing change in only one tissue type on average. On the other hand, “Adhesion” seems to be the most generically unstable BioCarta pathway category and “Cell Signaling” is second. These results are consistent with what we find with the KEGG pathways. Overall, the KEGG pathways seem to be more generically unstable than the BioCarta pathways (P = 1.68 × 10−9, t test). The three GO categories, “biological process,” “molecular function,” and “cellular component,” did not show any statistically significant difference in their generic instability.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 4.

Pathway categories and the average number of tissue types where the pathways have shown a change in their coherence (average unstable tissue count)

Stability of “Cancer Pathways”

Cancer is a genetic disease and genes operate through pathways. Variations in the gene regulation patterns in a pathway, as reflected by the change of cohesiveness in the pathway, may be indicative of pathway instability, which itself may be a result (or cause) of genetic abnormalities. Approximately 45% of the 962 analyzed pathways contain at least one of the 346 known “cancer genes” according to a recent census of human cancer genes (1). As described earlier in the text, a change in cohesiveness has been found in 25% of all the pathways analyzed, including 16% down pathways and 9% up pathways. The question of interest then is whether the pathways that have shown a cohesiveness change in tumor compared with normal tissues can be considered “cancer pathways” based on the likelihood of them containing cancer genes, or whether cancer pathways in general are more likely to change their cohesiveness. The answer to the first questions is “yes,” as cancer genes are found in 57% of the pathways that have shown a change in their cohesiveness, which is significantly higher than the average probability (45%) of a pathway to contain cancer genes (P = 1.23 × 10−3, Fisher's exact test). Moreover, a down pathway is found to be much more likely to contain cancer genes than an average pathway (P = 4.20 × 10−5, Fisher's exact test). The partitioning of pathways in terms of cancer and noncancer is illustrated in Fig. 1A . Conversely, we have also found that cancer pathways are more likely to change their cohesiveness; i.e., a significantly higher percentage of cancer pathways show a cohesiveness change than the pathways that do not contain cancer genes (32% versus 20%; P = 2.92 × 10−5, Fisher's exact test). Moreover, the cancer pathways are especially enriched in down pathways (22% versus 11%; P = 1.60 × 10−6, Fisher's exact test), indicating that these pathways tend to become deregulated or dysfunctional in cancer. The partitioning of cancer and noncancer pathways in terms of cohesiveness change is shown in Fig. 1B. The fact that cancer pathways tend to become less cohesive in tumor-bearing tissues may be exploited to find more cancer pathways or cancer genes; i.e., other pathways that are shown to lose their cohesiveness in cancer, but are not known to contain cancer genes, may be additionally interesting pathways to be considered as therapeutic targets (e.g., the KEGG pathways “Fatty acid metabolism,” “Basal transcription factors,” and “Glycolysis/Gluconeogenesis”).

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

A comparison between pathways that contain cancer genes (cancer pathways) and those that do not contain known cancer genes (noncancer pathways) in terms of the percentage of pathways that show a coherence change in tumor versus normal tissues. The total pathway count for each pathway category is shown in parentheses next to each pathway type label. A, the pathways labeled as down (cohesive in normal and not cohesive in tumor tissues) contain a significantly larger percentage of cancer pathways than the other types of pathways. B, most pathways show no change in their coherence level comparing tumor and normal tissues; however, cancer pathways contain significantly more down pathways than noncancer pathways.

The instability of cancer pathways is also reflected by the number of tissue types in which they have shown a coherence change. Cancer pathways containing genes with germ-line or somatic mutations (7) both exhibit a coherence change in significantly more tissue types than an average pathway [germ line, P = 1.86 × 10−7; somatic, P = 4.96 × 10−5 (t test)], indicating that cancer pathways are generically less stable than other pathways. Interestingly, regardless of the fact that individuals with a germ-line mutation carry that mutation in every cell of their body whereas somatic mutations are found only in an individual's cancer cells (2, 3), the tissue promiscuity/specificity of pathway instability is found to be not significantly different between pathways containing germ-line cancer genes and those containing somatic cancer genes (average unstable tissue counts are 3.64 for pathways containing germ-line and 3.34 for somatic cancer genes; P = 0.31, t test). This may explain the tissue specificity of gene defects; i.e., although the vast majority of inherited cancer genes seem to be expressed in most adult tissues, a germ-line mutation in these genes is manifested in only a limited spectrum of cancers. We have found that most pathways, including the ones containing cancer genes, only show a coherence change in a small fraction of tissue types (15–20%), indicating that probably not all mutations will be translated into pathway instability, and only in the tissue types where the stability of pathways is compromised by a mutation will cancer arise. Just like mutated proteins may render a pathway unstable or deregulated, it is equally probable that pathway instability itself could be the contributing factor to certain gene mutations. Unstable pathways are probably more susceptible to environmental influences, which could trigger or facilitate mutations. The final result would be a malignant cycle that promotes uncontrolled growth. The implication that pathway instability could be the cause of genetic instability makes pathways as a system of interactions, rather than individual genes, an interesting target in itself for therapy considerations.

Strategies to Target Change in Anticancer Therapies: Finding Agents That Can Potentially Perturb Unstable Pathways

Pathways that tend to change their cohesiveness in tumor versus normal tissues represent interesting targets for anticancer therapy, making desirable agents with the potential to specifically disrupt these pathways. We have previously developed a method to relate compound cytotoxic response to pathways and mechanisms of action through gene expression patterns (41). Briefly, we have organized the tumor cell 50% growth inhibition (GI50) data for >40,000 screened compounds that are publicly available into Self-Organizing Maps (SOM; refs. 46, 47). SOM clustering of the GI50 data segregates compounds into nine major response categories: mitosis (M); membrane function (N); nucleic acid metabolism (S); metabolic stress and cell survival (Q); kinases/phosphatases and oxidative stress (P); and four unexplored regions, R, F, J, and V (47–49). Each of these regions is further divided into a total of 80 clades, each of which is a group of clusters (nodes) that share similar cytotoxic responses (M1–M8, N1–N13, P1–P8, Q1–Q7, R1–R7, S1–S13, F1–F8, J1–J8, and V1–V8). Compounds in SOM clusters that are significantly correlated with a pathway can potentially perturb that pathway. Therefore, for each of the pathways with a change in gene expression coherence, we have found the SOM cluster that is most significantly correlated with the pathway following the previously described methods (41). Figure 2A shows the distribution of these pathways in terms of the number of clusters identified in each SOM clade.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

SOM distribution of compounds that are the most significantly correlated with pathways of interest in terms of the number of clusters identified in each SOM clade. A, compound groups that can potentially target pathways with a change in gene expression coherence comparing tumor to normal tissues [gray histograms, up pathways (cohesive in tumor and not cohesive in normal tissues); black histograms, down pathways (cohesive in normal and not cohesive in tumor tissues)]. B, compound groups that can potentially target cancer pathways.

The compounds that are the most significantly correlated with these pathways are mostly clustered in SOM regions F, P, V, and N. This is not surprising because we have previously found that the P-region contains agents with kinase/phosphatase targeting as their putative mechanism of action (47, 50) and many of the pathways that tend to change their cohesiveness are signaling pathways. Some clades contain compounds that can potentially perturb both up and down pathways, such as clades F2, P1, and P2, whereas other clades contain compounds that seem to perturb specifically up or down pathways. Most notably, compounds clustered in clades P4 and M3 are associated only with up pathways and those in clades N9, P6, F6, F8, and V1 are associated predominantly with down pathways and with very few or no up pathways. The SOM distribution of compounds most significantly associated with pathways containing known cancer genes, and therefore are potential drug candidates for these pathways, is shown in Fig. 2B. The distribution pattern closely resembles those in Fig. 2A, especially those for the down pathways. Most clinically used compounds in anticancer therapies are located in regions M and S, essentially targeting the proliferation stage of a cancer cell. Our analysis, however, points to a much more diverse set of compounds with the potential to disrupt a wide spectrum of cellular processes characteristic of cancer cells, yet they are different from traditional cancer therapy.

Conclusions

In this study, we have developed strategies to analyze pathway stability by comparing pathway gene expression coherence or cohesiveness levels in tumor tissues to their normal counterparts. Changes occurring in cancer as reflected by variations in pathway coherence are considered indicative of pathway instability and possibly genetic instability. We have identified pathways that show a significant change in their coherence level in tumor tissues in general, as well as specific changes in certain tumor types. These pathways may represent good targets for developing novel anticancer therapies. Significantly more pathways are found to lose their coherence in tumor tissues. Signal transduction represents the most unstable pathway category, of which coherence in gene regulation is largely lost in tumor tissues. In contrast, pathways responsible for vital cellular processes are mostly able to maintain their gene expression coherence in tumor tissues and are among the most stable. The combination of homeostatic control over critical pathways to ensure survival and altered regulation of signaling to allow excessive proliferation forms the foundation for the selective growth advantage of cancer cells over normal cells. The instability of metabolic and cell cycle regulating pathways seems to be the most tissue specific. The function of these pathways and their unstable tissue type may provide important clues to finding the molecular mechanisms underlying specific cancer types. We have examined the particular pathways that contain known cancer genes and compared their behavior with other pathways. Cancer pathways are found to be more likely to lose their coherence and thus show a greater level of instability than an average pathway. Finally, we have proposed strategies to target these changes; i.e., to find new agents that can specifically target the unstable pathways that might be relevant in cancer.

Acknowledgments

We thank Sridhar Ramaswamy and colleagues for making the gene expression data available to us, and Dr. Ilan Kirsch for valuable contributions during the preparation of this manuscript.

Footnotes

  • ↵3 http://www-genome.wi.mit.edu/MPR.

  • ↵4 http://www.broad.mit.edu/mpr/publications/projects/Global_Cancer_Map/GCM_Total.res.

  • ↵Supplementary data for this article are available at Molecular Cancer Therapeutics Online (http://mct.aacrjournals.org/).

  • Grant support: Federal funds from the National Cancer Institute, NIH, contract no. NO1-CO-12400, and the Developmental Therapeutics Program, Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis, National Cancer Institute.

  • The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

    • Accepted July 26, 2006.
    • Received May 2, 2006.
    • Revision received June 19, 2006.
  • American Association for Cancer Research

References

  1. ↵
    Futreal PA, Coin L, Marshall M, et al. A census of human cancer genes. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:177–83.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Knudson AG. Cancer genetics. Am J Med Genet 2002;111:96–102.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Fearon ER. Human cancer syndromes: clues to the origin and nature of cancer. Science 1997;278:1043–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Loeb LA, Loeb KR, Anderson JP. Multiple mutations and cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:776–81.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. Rajagopalan H, Nowak MA, Vogelstein B, Lengauer C. The significance of unstable chromosomes in colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2003;3:695–701.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Sieber OM, Heinimann K, Tomlinson IP. Genomic instability—the engine of tumorigenesis? Nat Rev Cancer 2003;3:701–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW. Cancer genes and the pathways they control. Nat Med 2004;10:789–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Feinberg AP, Tycko B. The history of cancer epigenetics. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:143–53.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. Jones PA, Baylin SB. The fundamental role of epigenetic events in cancer. Nat Rev Genet 2002;3:415–28.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. Polyak K, Riggins GJ. Gene discovery using the serial analysis of gene expression technique: implications for cancer research. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:2948–58.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    Brown PO, Botstein D. Exploring the new world of the genome with DNA microarrays. Nat Genet 1999;21:33–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. ↵
    Schadt EE, Lamb J, Yang X, et al. An integrative genomics approach to infer causal associations between gene expression and disease. Nat Genet 2005;37:710–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. Rosenblatt KP, Bryant-Greenwood P, Killian JK, et al. Serum proteomics in cancer diagnosis and management. Annu Rev Med 2004;55:97–112.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. Ma XJ, Wang Z, Ryan PD, et al. A two-gene expression ratio predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Cancer Cell 2004;5:607–16.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. Collins FS, Green ED, Guttmacher AE, Guyer MS. A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature 2003;422:835–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. Schadt EE, Monks SA, Friend SH. A new paradigm for drug discovery: integrating clinical, genetic, genomic and molecular phenotype data to identify drug targets. Biochem Soc Trans 2003;31:437–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Wallqvist A, Connelly J, Sausville EA, Covell DG, Monks A. Differential gene expression as a potential classifier of 5F-203 sensitive and insensitive cell lines. Mol Pharmacol 2005;69:737–48.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. ↵
    Horvitz HR. Worms, life, and death (Nobel lecture). Chembiochem 2003;4:697–711.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Van Dyke T, Jacks T. Cancer modeling in the modern era: progress and challenges. Cell 2002;108:135–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    Sherr CJ. The Pezcoller lecture: cancer cell cycles revisited. Cancer Res 2000;60:3689–95.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. Ichimura K, Bolin MB, Goike HM, Schmidt EE, Moshref A, Collins VP. Deregulation of the p14ARF/MDM2/p53 pathway is a prerequisite for human astrocytic gliomas with G1-S transition control gene abnormalities. Cancer Res 2000;60:417–24.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. Vogelstein B, Lane D, Levine AJ. Surfing the p53 network. Nature 2000;408:307–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Oren M. Decision making by p53: life, death and cancer. Cell Death Differ 2003;10:431–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Cary MP, Bader GD, Sander C. Pathway information for systems biology. FEBS Lett 2005;579:1815–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Apic G, Ignjatovic T, Boyer S, Russell RB. Illuminating drug discovery with biological pathways. FEBS Lett 2005;579:1872–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Huang S. Back to the biology in systems biology: what can we learn from biomolecular networks? Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic 2004;2:279–97.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    Pardanani A, Tefferi A. Imatinib targets other than bcr/abl and their clinical relevance in myeloid disorders. Blood 2004;104:1931–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Nikolsky Y, Nikolskaya T, Bugrim A. Biological networks and analysis of experimental data in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today 2005;10:653–62.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. Rajasethupathy P, Vayttaden SJ, Bhalla US. Systems modeling: a pathway to drug discovery. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2005;9:400–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. Bugrim A, Nikolskaya T, Nikolsky Y. Early prediction of drug metabolism and toxicity: systems biology approach and modeling. Drug Discov Today 2004;9:127–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Ideker T, Galitski T, Hood L. A new approach to decoding life: systems biology. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2001;2:343–72.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    Wolkenhauer O, Ullah M, Wellstead P, Cho KH. The dynamic systems approach to control and regulation of intracellular networks. FEBS Lett 2005;579:1846–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Khalil IG, Hill C. Systems biology for cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 2005;17:44–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    Kirschner MW. The meaning of systems biology. Cell 2005;121:503–4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. Butcher EC. Can cell systems biology rescue drug discovery? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005;4:461–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    Butcher EC, Berg EL, Kunkel EJ. Systems biology in drug discovery. Nat Biotechnol 2004;22:1253–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    Tomfohr J, Lu J, Kepler TB. Pathway level analysis of gene expression using singular value decomposition. BMC Bioinformatics 2005;6:225.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. Allocco DJ, Kohane IS, Butte AJ. Quantifying the relationship between co-expression, co-regulation and gene function. BMC Bioinformatics 2004;5:18.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    Zhou Y, Young JA, Santrosyan A, Chen K, Yan SF, Winzeler EA. In silico gene function prediction using ontology-based pattern identification. Bioinformatics 2005;21:1237–45.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  40. ↵
    Huang R, Wallqvist A, Covell DG. Comprehensive analysis of pathway or functionally related gene expression in the National Cancer Institute's anticancer screen. Genomics 2006;87:315–28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    Huang R, Wallqvist A, Thanki N, Covell DG. Linking pathway gene expressions to the growth inhibition response from the National Cancer Institute's anticancer screen and drug mechanism of action. Pharmacogenomics J 2005;5:381–99.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    Ramaswamy S, Tamayo P, Rifkin R, et al. Multiclass cancer diagnosis using tumor gene expression signatures. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:15149–54.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    Covell DG, Wallqvist A, Rabow AA, Thanki N. Molecular classification of cancer: unsupervised self-organizing map analysis of gene expression microarray data. Mol Cancer Ther 2003;2:317–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    Chalandon Y, Schwaller J. Targeting mutated protein tyrosine kinases and their signaling pathways in hematologic malignancies. Haematologica 2005;90:949–68.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  45. ↵
    Ganti AK, Potti A. Epidermal growth factor inhibition in solid tumours. Expert Opin Biol Ther 2005;5:1165–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    Kohonen T. Self-Organizing Maps. Berlin, Germany: Springer Verlag; 1995.
  47. ↵
    Rabow AA, Shoemaker RH, Sausville EA, Covell DG. Mining the National Cancer Institute's tumor-screening database: identification of compounds with similar cellular activities. J Med Chem 2002;45:818–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. Covell DG, Wallqvist A, Huang R, Thanki N, Rabow AA, Lu XJ. Linking tumor cell cytotoxicity to mechanism of drug action: an integrated analysis of gene expression, small-molecule screening and structural databases. Proteins 2005;59:403–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    Huang R, Wallqvist A, Covell DG. Anticancer metal compounds in NCI's tumor-screening database: putative mode of action. Biochem Pharmacol 2005;69:1009–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    Wallqvist A, Monks A, Rabow AA, Thanki N, Shoemaker RH, Covell DG. Mining the NCI screening database: explorations of agents involved in cell cycle regulation. Prog Cell Cycle Res 2003;5:173–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top
Molecular Cancer Therapeutics: 5 (9)
September 2006
Volume 5, Issue 9
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Molecular Cancer Therapeutics article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Targeting changes in cancer: assessing pathway stability by comparing pathway gene expression coherence levels in tumor and normal tissues
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Molecular Cancer Therapeutics.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Targeting changes in cancer: assessing pathway stability by comparing pathway gene expression coherence levels in tumor and normal tissues
Ruili Huang, Anders Wallqvist and David G. Covell
Mol Cancer Ther September 1 2006 (5) (9) 2417-2427; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0239

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Targeting changes in cancer: assessing pathway stability by comparing pathway gene expression coherence levels in tumor and normal tissues
Ruili Huang, Anders Wallqvist and David G. Covell
Mol Cancer Ther September 1 2006 (5) (9) 2417-2427; DOI: 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0239
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results and Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Caspase-dependent and caspase-independent apoptosis induced by evodiamine in human leukemic U937 cells
  • Enhanced transduction of malignant glioma with a double targeted Ad5/3-RGD fiber-modified adenovirus
Show more Research Articles: Targets
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About MCT

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
eISSN: 1538-8514
ISSN: 1535-7163

Advertisement