Back

The biomechanical context influences the output signaling, independently of PIK3CA mutations in breast cancer cells.

Di-Luoffo, M.; Delarue, M.; Guillermet-Guibert, J.

2021-10-19 bioinformatics
10.1101/2021.10.18.464825 bioRxiv
Show abstract

ContextMechanical stresses, including compression, arise during cancer progression. In solid cancer, especially breast and pancreatic cancers, the rapid tumor growth and the environment remodeling explain their high intensity of compressive forces. However, the sensitivity of compressed cells to targeted therapies remains poorly known. ResultsIn breast and pancreatic cancer cells, pharmacological PI3K inactivation decreased cell number and induced apoptosis. These effects were accentuated when we applied 2D compression forces in mechanically responsive cells. Compression selectively induced overexpression of PI3K isoforms and PI3K/AKT pathway activation. Further, transcriptional effects of PI3K inhibition and compression converged to control the expression of an autophagy regulator, GABARAP, which level was inversely associated with PI3K inhibitor sensitivity under compression. Compression alone blocked autophagy flux in all tested cells, while inactivation of basal PI3K activity restored autophagy flux only in mechanically non-responsive compressed cells. ConclusionThis study provides direct evidence for the role of PI3K/AKT pathway in compression-induced mechanotransduction. PI3K inhibition promotes apoptosis or autophagy, explaining PI3K importance to control cancer cell survival under compression.

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Cell Science
● 393 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
8.0%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 6%
8.0%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
○ 233 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
5.6%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Cell Death & Disease
147 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.5%
5
Disease Models & Mechanisms
139 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.5%
6
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 27%
4.4%
7
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.4%
8
Biomaterials
○ 84 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.4%
9
Cells
○ 249 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.3%
10
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
○ 494 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.7%
50% of probability mass above
11
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
○ 98 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.7%
12
Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports
○ 30 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
13
International Journal of Biological Sciences
● 10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.8%
14
Biomedicines
○ 67 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
15
Advanced Science
○ 286 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.8%
16
BMC Molecular and Cell Biology
○ 16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
17
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.7%
18
PeerJ
◐ 308 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.5%
19
Journal of Cellular Biochemistry
○ 11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
20
Cancers
○ 213 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.4%
21
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.1%
22
European Journal of Cell Biology
○ 15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.1%
23
Frontiers in Veterinary Science
○ 32 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
24
Journal of Neurotrauma
○ 31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
25
Journal of Biomechanics
○ 64 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
26
Autophagy
○ 39 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
27
Biophysical Journal
○ 631 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
28
Life
○ 29 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
29
Frontiers in Oncology
○ 103 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
30
Soft Matter
● 60 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.