Cancer systems biology: A peek into the future of patient care?

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 167-176

  Werner, Henrica M J ^a   Mills, Gordon B ^b   Ram, Prahlad T ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER CELL; CANCER RESISTANCE; CANCER THERAPY; CELL HETEROGENEITY; HUMAN; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MOLECULAR INTERACTION; MOLECULAR MODEL; PATIENT CARE; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; REVIEW; SIGNAL TRANSDUCTION; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY; TUMOR MICROENVIRONMENT;

HUMANS; INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE; NEOPLASMS; SYSTEMS BIOLOGY;

EID: 84896705997     PISSN: 17594774     EISSN: 17594782     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.6     Document Type: Review

References (106)

1. Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100, 57-70 (2000). (Pubitemid 30046295)
2. Hanahan, D. & Weinberg, R. A. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144, 646-674 (2011).
3. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 490, 61-70 (2012).
4. Gentles, A. J. & Gallahan, D. Systems biology: confronting the complexity of cancer. Cancer Res. 71, 5961-5964 (2011).
5. Basu, A. et al. An interactive resource to identify cancer genetic and lineage dependencies targeted by small molecules. Cell 154, 1151-1161 (2013).
6. Berns, K. & Bernards, R. Understanding resistance to targeted cancer drugs through loss of function genetic screens. Drug Resist. Updat. 15, 268-275 (2012).
7. Whitehurst, A. W. et al. Synthetic lethal screen identification of chemosensitizer loci in cancer cells. Nature 446, 815-819 (2007). (Pubitemid 46582032)
8. National Cancer Institute. The Cancer Genome Atlas [online], http://cancergenome.nih.gov/.
9. International Cancer Genome Consortium [online], http://icgc.org/.
10. Lefebvre, C., Rieckhof, G. & Califano, A. Reverse-engineering human regulatory networks. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Syst. Biol. Med. 4, 311-325 (2012).
11. Carro, M. S. et al. The transcriptional network for mesenchymal transformation of brain tumours. Nature 463, 318-325 (2010).
12. Huang, S. S. et al. Linking proteomic and transcriptional data through the interactome and epigenome reveals a map of oncogene-induced signaling. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1002887 (2013).
13. Iadevaia, S., Lu, Y., Morales, F. C., Mills, G. B. & Ram, P. T. Identification of optimal drug combinations targeting cellular networks: integrating phospho-proteomics and computational network analysis. Cancer Res. 70, 6704-6714 (2010).
14. Pascal, J. et al. Mechanistic patient-specific predictive correlation of tumor drug response with microenvironment and perfusion measurements. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 14266-14271 (2013).
15. Swanson, K. R. et al. Quantifying the role of angiogenesis in malignant progression of gliomas: in silico modeling integrates imaging and histology. Cancer Res. 71, 7366-7375 (2011).
16. Dedes, K. J., Wetterskog, D., Ashworth, A., Kaye, S. B. & Reis-Filho, J. S. Emerging therapeutic targets in endometrial cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 8, 261-271 (2011).
17. Gore, M. E. & Larkin, J. M. Challenges and opportunities for converting renal cell carcinoma into a chronic disease with targeted therapies. Br. J. Cancer 104, 399-406 (2011).
18. Diaz, L. A. et al. The molecular evolution of acquired resistance to targeted EGFR blockade in colorectal cancers. Nature 486, 537-540 (2012).
19. Janku, F. et al. PI3K/AKT/mTOR inhibitors in patients with breast and gynecologic malignancies harboring PIK3CA mutations. J. Clin. Oncol. 30, 777-782 (2012).
20. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Nature 499, 43-49 (2013).
21. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic characterization of endometrial carcinoma. Nature 497, 67-73 (2013).
22. Cibulskis, K. et al. Sensitive detection of somatic point mutations in impure and heterogeneous cancer samples. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 213-219 (2013).
23. Hennessy, B. T. et al. A technical assessment of the utility of reverse phase protein arrays for the study of the functional proteome in non-microdissected human breast cancers. Clin. Proteomics 6, 129-151 (2010).
24. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer. Nature 487, 330-337 (2012).
25. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network. Integrated genomic analyses of ovarian carcinoma. Nature 474, 609-615 (2011).
26. Chin, K. et al. Genomic and transcriptional aberrations linked to breast cancer pathophysiologies. Cancer Cell 10, 529-541 (2006). (Pubitemid 44854748)
27. Neve, R. M. et al. A collection of breast cancer cell lines for the study of functionally distinct cancer subtypes. Cancer Cell 10, 515-527 (2006). (Pubitemid 44854747)
28. Bodenmiller, B. et al. Multiplexed mass cytometry profiling of cellular states perturbed by small-molecule regulators. Nat. Biotechnol. 30, 858-867 (2012).
29. Hill, S. M. et al. Bayesian inference of signaling network topology in a cancer cell line. Bioinformatics 28, 2804-2810 (2012).
30. Pritchard, J. R. et al. Defining principles of combination drug mechanisms of action. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, E170-E179 (2013).
31. Qiu, P. et al. Extracting a cellular hierarchy from high-dimensional cytometry data with SPADE. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 886-891 (2011).
32. Sumazin, P. et al. An extensive microRNA-mediated network of RNA-RNA interactions regulates established oncogenic pathways in glioblastoma. Cell 147, 370-381 (2011).
33. Tentner, A. R. et al. Combined experimental and computational analysis of DNA damage signaling reveals context-dependent roles for Erk in apoptosis and G1/S arrest after genotoxic stress. Mol. Syst. Biol. 8, 568 (2012).
34. Bozic, I. et al. Accumulation of driver and passenger mutations during tumor progression. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 18545-18550 (2010).
35. Greenman, C. et al. Patterns of somatic mutation in human cancer genomes. Nature 446, 153-158 (2007). (Pubitemid 46398669)
36. Mills, G. B. An emerging toolkit for targeted cancer therapies. Genome Res. 22, 177-182 (2012).
37. Chin, L., Hahn, W. C., Getz, G. & Meyerson, M. Making sense of cancer genomic data. Genes Dev. 25, 534-555 (2011).
38. Derry, J. M. et al. Developing predictive molecular maps of human disease through community-based modeling. Nat. Genet. 44, 127-130 (2012).
39. Norman, T. C., Bountra, C., Edwards, A. M., Yamamoto, K. R. & Friend, S. H. Leveraging crowdsourcing to facilitate the discovery of new medicines. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 88mr1 (2011).
40. Bordbar, A. et al. Model-driven multi-omic data analysis elucidates metabolic immunomodulators of macrophage activation. Mol. Syst. Biol. 8, 558 (2012).
41. Amit, I. et al. A module of negative feedback regulators defines growth factor signaling. Nat. Genet. 39, 503-12 (2007). (Pubitemid 46514770)
42. Liang, H. et al. Whole-exome sequencing combined with functional genomics reveals novel candidate driver cancer genes in endometrial cancer. Genome Res. 22, 2120-2129 (2012).
43. Drabsch, Y. & ten Dijke, P. TGF-β signalling and its role in cancer progression and metastasis. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 31, 553-568 (2012).
44. Tian, M., Neil, J. R. & Schiemann, W. P. Transforming growth factor-β and the hallmarks of cancer. Cell Signal. 23, 951-962 (2011).
45. Swartz, M. A. et al. Tumor microenvironment complexity: emerging roles in cancer therapy. Cancer Res. 72, 2473-2480 (2012).
46. Lander, A. D. et al. What does the concept of the stem cell niche really mean today? BMC Biol. 10, 19 (2012).
47. Park, E. S. et al. Cross-species hybridization of microarrays for studying tumor transcriptome of brain metastasis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 17456-17461 (2011).
48. Finak, G. et al. Stromal gene expression predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer. Nat. Med. 14, 518-527 (2008). (Pubitemid 351655218)
49. Puigvert, J. C. et al. Cross-talk between integrins and oncogenes modulates chemosensitivity. Mol. Pharmacol. 75, 947-955 (2009).
50. Storch, K. et al. Three-dimensional cell growth confers radioresistance by chromatin density modification. Cancer Res. 70, 3925-3934 (2010).
51. Zschenker, O., Streichert, T., Hehlgans, S. & Cordes, N. Genome-wide gene expression analysis in cancer cells reveals 3D growth to affect ECM and processes associated with cell adhesion but not DNA repair. PLoS ONE 7, e34279 (2012).
52. Whitesides, G. M. The origins and the future of microfluidics. Nature 442, 368-373 (2006). (Pubitemid 44264779)
53. Albeck, J. G., Mills, G. B. & Brugge, J. S. Frequency-modulated pulses of ERK activity transmit quantitative proliferation signals. Mol. Cell 49, 249-261 (2013).
54. Kenny, H. A., Krausz, T., Yamada, S. D. & Lengyel, E. Use of a novel 3D culture model to elucidate the role of mesothelial cells, fibroblasts and extra-cellular matrices on adhesion and invasion of ovarian cancer cells to the omentum. Int. J. Cancer 121, 1463-1472 (2007). (Pubitemid 47328704)
55. Kenny, P. A. et al. The morphologies of breast cancer cell lines in three-dimensional assays correlate with their profiles of gene expression. Mol. Oncol. 1, 84-96 (2007). (Pubitemid 46776616)
56. Rejniak, K. A. et al. Linking changes in epithelial morphogenesis to cancer mutations using computational modeling. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6, e1000900 (2010).
57. Kristensen, V. N. et al. Integrated molecular profiles of invasive breast tumors and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) reveal differential vascular and interleukin signaling. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2802-2807 (2012).
58. Remark, R. et al. Characteristics and clinical impacts of the immune environments in colorectal and renal cell carcinoma lung metastases: influence of tumor origin. Clin. Cancer Res. 19, 4079-4091 (2013).
59. Enderling, H., Hlatky, L. & Hahnfeldt, P. Cancer stem cells: a minor cancer subpopulation that redefines global cancer features. Front. Oncol. 3, 76 (2013).
60. Frieboes, H. B. et al. An integrated computational/experimental model of lymphoma growth. PLoS Comput. Biol. e1003008 (2013).
61. Enderling, H. et al. Paradoxical dependencies of tumor dormancy and progression on basic cell kinetics. Cancer Res. 69, 8814-8821 (2009).
62. Andasari, V., Gerisch, A., Lolas, G., South, A. P. & Chaplain, M. A. Mathematical modeling of cancer cell invasion of tissue: biological insight from mathematical analysis and computational simulation. J. Math. Biol. 63, 141-171 (2011).
63. Haeno, H. et al. Computational modeling of pancreatic cancer reveals kinetics of metastasis suggesting optimum treatment strategies. Cell 148, 362-375 (2012).
64. Kim, M., Gillies, R. J. & Rejniak, K. A. Current advances in mathematical modeling of anti-cancer drug penetration into tumor tissues. Front. Oncol. 3, 278 (2013).
65. Eyler, C. E. & Rich, J. N. Survival of the fittest: cancer stem cells in therapeutic resistance and angiogenesis. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 2839-2845 (2008).
66. Singh, A. & Settleman, J. EMT, cancer stem cells and drug resistance: an emerging axis of evil in the war on cancer. Oncogene 29, 4741-4751 (2010).
67. Biddle, A. et al. Cancer stem cells in squamous cell carcinoma switch between two distinct phenotypes that are preferentially migratory or proliferative. Cancer Res. 71, 5317-5326 (2011).
68. Chaffer, C. L. et al. Normal and neoplastic nonstem cells can spontaneously convert to a stem-like state. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 7950-7955 (2011).
69. Gupta, P. B. et al. Stochastic state transitions give rise to phenotypic equilibrium in populations of cancer cells. Cell 146, 633-644 (2011).
70. Wang, Z. A. et al. Lineage analysis of basal epithelial cells reveals their unexpected plasticity and supports a cell-of-origin model for prostate cancer heterogeneity. Nat. Cell Biol. 15, 274-283 (2013).
71. Lander, A. D., Gokoffski, K. K., Wan, F. Y., Nie, Q. & Calof, A. L. Cell lineages and the logic of proliferative control. PLoS Biol. 7, e15 (2009).
72. Zhang, L., Lander, A. D. & Nie, Q. A reaction-diffusion mechanism influences cell lineage progression as a basis for formation, regeneration, and stability of intestinal crypts. BMC Syst. Biol. 6, 93 (2012).
73. Youssefpour, H., Li, X., Lander, A. D. & Lowengrub, J. S. Multispecies model of cell lineages and feedback control in solid tumors. J. Theor. Biol. 304, 39-59 (2012).
74. Lawrence, M. S. et al. Mutational heterogeneity in cancer and the search for new cancer-associated genes. Nature 499, 214-218 (2013).
75. Tyson, D. R., Garbett, S. P., Frick, P. L. & Quaranta, V. Fractional proliferation: a method to deconvolve cell population dynamics from single-cell data. Nat. Methods 9, 923-928 (2012).
76. Yankeelov, T. E. et al. Clinically relevant modeling of tumor growth and treatment response. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 187ps9 (2013).
77. Sadanandam, A. et al. A colorectal cancer classification system that associates cellular phenotype and responses to therapy. Nat. Med. 19, 619-625 (2013).
78. Hu, J. et al. Heterogeneity of tumor-induced gene expression changes in the human metabolic network. Nat. Biotechnol. 31, 522-529 (2013).
79. Nelander, S. et al. Models from experiments: combinatorial drug perturbations of cancer cells. Mol. Syst. Biol. 4, 216 (2008).
80. Saez-Rodriguez, J. et al. Comparing signaling networks between normal and transformed hepatocytes using discrete logical models. Cancer Res. 71, 5400-5411 (2011).
81. Alexopoulos, L. G., Saez-Rodriguez, J., Cosgrove, B. D., Lauffenburger, D. A. & Sorger, P. K. Networks inferred from biochemical data reveal profound differences in toll-like receptor and inflammatory signaling between normal and transformed hepatocytes. Mol. Cell. Proteomics 9, 1849-1865 (2010).
82. Collisson, E. A. et al. Subtypes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and their differing responses to therapy. Nat. Med. 17, 500-503 (2011).
83. Bussey, K. J. et al. Integrating data on DNA copy number with gene expression levels and drug sensitivities in the NCI-60 cell line panel. Mol. Cancer Ther. 5, 853-867 (2006). (Pubitemid 43724584)
84. Heiser, L. M. et al. Integrated analysis of breast cancer cell lines reveals unique signaling pathways. Genome Biol. 10, R31 (2009).
85. Heiser, L. M. et al. Subtype and pathway specific responses to anticancer compounds in breast cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 2724-2729 (2012).
86. Kim, N. et al. Systematic analysis of genotype-specific drug responses in cancer. Int. J. Cancer 131, 2456-2464 (2012).
87. Tabchy, A., Eltonsy, N., Housman, D. E. & Mills, G. B. Systematic identification of combinatorial drivers and targets in cancer cell lines. PLoS ONE 8, e60339 (2013).
88. Banko, M. R. et al. Chemical genetic screen for AMPKalpha2 substrates uncovers a network of proteins involved in mitosis. Mol. Cell 44, 878-892 (2011).
89. Jiang, H., Pritchard, J. R., Williams, R. T., Lauffenburger, D. A. & Hemann, M. T. A mammalian functional-genetic approach to characterizing cancer therapeutics. Nat. Chem. Biol. 7, 92-100 (2011).
90. Lu, Y. et al. Kinome siRNA-phosphoproteomic screen identifies networks regulating AKT signaling. Oncogene 30, 4567-4577 (2011).
91. Nieman, K. M. et al. Adipocytes promote ovarian cancer metastasis and provide energy for rapid tumor growth. Nat. Med. 17, 1498-1503 (2011).
92. Wagner, J. P. et al. Receptor tyrosine kinases fall into distinct classes based on their inferred signaling networks. Sci. Signal. 6, ra58 (2013).
93. Komurov, K. et al. The glucose-deprivation network counteracts lapatinib-induced toxicity in resistant ErbB2-positive breast cancer cells. Mol. Syst. Biol. 8, 596 (2012).
94. Csibi, A. et al. The mTORC1 pathway stimulates glutamine metabolism and cell proliferation by repressing SIRT4. Cell 153, 840-854 (2013).
95. Beckman, R. A., Schemmann, G. S. & Yeang, C. H. Impact of genetic dynamics and single-cell heterogeneity on development of nonstandard personalized medicine strategies for cancer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 14586-14591 (2012).
96. Lunardi, A. et al. A co-clinical approach identifies mechanisms and potential therapies for androgen deprivation resistance in prostate cancer. Nat. Genet. 45, 747-755 (2013).
97. Lee, M. J. et al. Sequential application of anticancer drugs enhances cell death by rewiring apoptotic signaling networks. Cell 149, 780-794 (2012).
98. Chang, R. L., Xie, L., Xie, L., Bourne, P. E. & Palsson, B. O. Drug off-target effects predicted using structural analysis in the context of a metabolic network model. PLoS Comput. Biol. 6, e1000938 (2010).
99. Bisikirska, B. C. et al. STK38 is a critical upstream regulator of MYC's oncogenic activity in human B-cell lymphoma. Oncogene 32, 5283-5291 (2013).
100. Schoeberl, B. et al. Therapeutically targeting ErbB3: a key node in ligand-induced activation of the ErbB receptor-PI3K axis. Sci. Signal. 2, ra31 (2009).
101. McDonagh, C. F. et al. Antitumor activity of a novel bispecific antibody that targets the ErbB2/ErbB3 oncogenic unit and inhibits heregulin-induced activation of ErbB3. Mol. Cancer Ther. 11, 582-593 (2012).
102. Kirouac, D. C. et al. Computational modeling of ERBB2-amplified breast cancer identifies combined ErbB2/3 blockade as superior to the combination of MEK and AKT inhibitors. Sci. Signal. 6, ra68 (2013).
103. Bilal, E. et al. Improving breast cancer survival analysis through competition-based multidimensional modeling. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003047 (2013).
104. The Dream Project [online], http://www.thedreamproject.org/.
105. Shi, L. et al. The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC)-II study of common practices for the development and validation of microarray-based predictive models. Nat. Biotechnol. 28, 827-838 (2010).
106. Margolin, A. A. et al. Systematic analysis of challenge-driven improvements in molecular prognostic models for breast cancer. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 181re1 (2013).