PO.ET09.05 · 实验与分子治疗
网络水平的激酶活性与B细胞淋巴瘤细胞系的差异性药物敏感性相关
Network‑level kinase activity associate with differential drug sensitivity in B-Cell lymphoma cell lines
作者与单位 Authors & Affiliations
摘要 Abstract
中文摘要
背景:B细胞淋巴瘤对激酶抑制剂表现出异质性反应,反映了激酶活性和信号网络状态的潜在变异性。理解基线激酶活性和更广泛的信号网络模式如何与药物敏感性相关,可能改善治疗分层并揭示药物反应机制。
方法:从CancerRxGene数据库(癌症药物敏感性基因组学)中检索B细胞淋巴瘤细胞系的药物敏感性数据(IC50值),并使用各细胞系间LN(IC50)值的标准差量化靶向丝氨酸/苏氨酸激酶(STK)家族的小分子抑制剂的反应变异性。对11个B细胞淋巴瘤细胞系,使用KinomePro平台(PamGene International B.V.)进行激酶活性谱分析,并使用上游激酶分析从磷酸化特征预测激酶。我们进行了多组学因子分析(MOFA),以整合磷酸化特征和药物敏感性数据,识别捕捉激酶与药物反应之间相关性的潜在因子。
结果:药物反应在各细胞系间显示出显著的异质性:7%的药物为同质(LN(IC50) SD<0.5),41%为中度异质(SD 0.5-1),52%为异质(SD>1)。在观察到药物敏感性的细胞系中,仅10-30%显示药物靶激酶活性升高,且这一相关性无统计学意义。相关性分析(MOFA)识别出将激酶活性映射到药物敏感性的潜在因子,并揭示了两个不同的敏感性聚类:一个包括对细胞生长、存活、代谢和增殖至关重要的PI3K/AKT/mTOR;第二个聚类包括对DNA损伤反应、细胞周期调控和检查点信号至关重要的CDK、ATM/ATR、Wee1、AURKA和MAPK。上游激酶分析验证了对AKT/PI3K/mTOR抑制剂敏感的细胞系表现出相对较高的AKT和RSK信号活性,而对靶向细胞周期通路抑制剂敏感的细胞系则表现出较高的基线CDK和MAPK家族激酶。
结论:我们对药物敏感性和激酶活性数据的整合分析表明,B细胞淋巴瘤的反应不仅由单个激酶活性决定,还由信号网络的架构决定。基线激酶活性特征与药物敏感性之间的高度一致性凸显了反应的网络水平决定因素。与敏感性相关的信号网络特征可作为分层的生物标志物,并为异质性药物反应提供机制性见解。这些发现为功能验证以及由网络水平依赖性指导的联合疗法的开发奠定了基础。
查看英文原文 English abstract
Background: B-cell lymphomas display heterogeneous responses to kinase inhibitors, reflecting underlying variability in kinase activity and signaling network states. Understanding how baseline kinase activity and broader signaling network patterns relate to drug sensitivity could improve therapeutic stratification and uncover mechanisms of drug response.
Methods: Drug sensitivity data (IC₅₀ values) for B-cell lymphoma cell lines were retrieved from the CancerRxGene database (Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer) and response variability for small-molecule inhibitors targeting serine/threonine kinase (STK) families was quantified using the standard deviation of its LN(IC₅₀) values across cell lines. For 11 B-cell lymphoma cell lines, kinase activity profiling was performed using KinomePro platform (PamGene International B.V.) and Upstream Kinase Analysis was used to predict kinases from the phosphorylation signatures. We conducted Multi-Omics Factor Analysis (MOFA) to integrate phosphorylation signatures and drug sensitivity data, identifying latent factors that capture correlations between kinases and drug responses.
Results: Drug responses showed substantial heterogeneity across cell lines: 7% of drugs were homogeneous (LN(IC₅₀) SD < 0.5), 41% moderately heterogeneous (SD 0.5-1), and 52% heterogeneous (SD > 1). In cell lines where drug sensitivity was observed, only 10-30% showed elevated activity of the drug target kinase, and this correlation was not statistically significant. Correlation analysis (MOFA) identified latent factors that mapped kinase activity to drug sensitivity and revealed two distinct sensitivity clusters: one comprising PI3K/AKT/mTOR, central to cell growth, survival, metabolism, and proliferation; and a second cluster including CDK, ATM/ATR, Wee1, AURKA, and MAPK, central to DNA damage response, cell cycle regulation and checkpoint signaling. Upstream Kinase Analysis validated that cell lines sensitive to AKT/PI3K/mTOR inhibitors exhibited relatively high AKT and RSK signaling activity, whereas cell lines sensitive to inhibitors targeting cell cycle pathway showed higher baseline CDK and MAPK family kinases.
Conclusions: Our integrative analysis of drug sensitivity and kinase-activity data demonstrates that B-cell lymphoma response is shaped not only by individual kinase activities but also by the architecture of signaling networks. The strong concordance between baseline kinase activity signatures and drug sensitivity highlights network-level determinants of response. Signal-network signatures associated with sensitivity may serve as biomarkers for stratification and provide mechanistic insight into heterogeneous drug responses. These findings lay a foundation for functional validation and the development of combination therapies guided by network-level dependencies.
利益披露 Disclosure
S. P. Singh,
PamGene International B.V. Employment.
L. Woods,
PamGene International B.V. Employment.
R. Keijzers,
PamGene International B.V. Employment.
G. Dharmadhikari,
PamGene International B.V. Employment.
D. Schuller,
PamGene International B.V. Employment.
R. de Wijn,
PamGene International B.V. Employment.