Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Other Publications
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit iiar on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleArticles
Open Access

The Role of Apoptotic Genes and Protein-Protein Interactions in Triple-negative Breast Cancer

GETINET M. ADINEW, SAMIA MESSEHA, EQUAR TAKA, SHADE A. AHMED and KARAM F.A. SOLIMAN
Cancer Genomics & Proteomics May 2023, 20 (3) 247-272; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/cgp.20379
GETINET M. ADINEW
Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Institute of Public Health, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SAMIA MESSEHA
Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Institute of Public Health, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
EQUAR TAKA
Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Institute of Public Health, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SHADE A. AHMED
Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Institute of Public Health, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KARAM F.A. SOLIMAN
Division of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Institute of Public Health, Florida A&M University, Tallahassee, FL, U.S.A.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: karam.soliman@famu.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: Compared to other breast cancer types, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has historically had few treatment alternatives. Therefore, exploring and pinpointing potentially implicated genes could be used for treating and managing TNBC. By doing this, we will provide essential data to comprehend how the genes are involved in the apoptotic pathways of the cancer cells to identify potential therapeutic targets. Analysis of a single genetic alteration may not reveal the pathogenicity driving TNBC due to the high genomic complexity and heterogeneity of TNBC. Therefore, searching through a large variety of gene interactions enabled the identification of molecular therapeutic genes. Materials and Methods: This study used integrated bioinformatics methods such as UALCAN, TNM plotter, PANTHER, GO-KEEG and PPIs to assess the gene expression, protein-protein interaction (PPI), and transcription factor interaction of apoptosis-regulated genes. Results: Compared to normal breast tissue, gene expressions of BNIP3, TNFRSF10B, MCL1, and CASP4 were downregulated in UALCAN. At the same time, BIK, AKT1, BAD, FADD, DIABLO, and CASP9 was down-regulated in bc-GeneExMiner v4.5 mRNA expression (BCGM) databases. Based on GO term enrichment analysis, the cellular process (GO:0009987), which has about 21 apoptosis-regulated genes, is the top category in the biological processes (BP), followed by biological regulation (GO:0065007). We identified 29 differentially regulated pathways, including the p53 pathway, angiogenesis, apoptosis signaling pathway, and the Alzheimer’s disease presenilin pathway. We examined the PPIs between the genes that regulate apoptosis; CASP3 and CASP9 interact with FADD, MCL1, TNF, TNFRSRF10A, and TNFRSF10; additionally, CASP3 significantly forms PPIs with CASP9, DFFA, and TP53, and CASP9 with DIABLO. In the top 10 transcription factors, the androgen receptor (AR) interacts with five apoptosis-regulated genes (p<0.0001; q<0.01), followed by retinoic acid receptor alpha (RARA) (p<0.0001; q<0.01) and ring finger protein (RNF2) (p<0.0001; q<0.01). Overall, the gene expression profile, PPIs, and the apoptosis-TF interaction findings suggest that the 27 apoptosis-regulated genes might be used as promising targets in treating and managing TNBC. Furthermore, from a total of 27 key genes, CASP2, CASP3, DAPK1, TNF, TRAF2, and TRAF3 were significantly correlated with poor overall survival in TNBC (p-value <0.05); they could play important roles in the progression of TNBC and provide attractive therapeutic targets that may offer new candidate molecules for targeted therapy. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that CASP2, CASP3, DAPK1, TNF, TRAF2, and TRAF3 were substantially associated with the overall survival rate (OS) difference of TNBC patients out of a total of 27 specific genes used in this study, which may play crucial roles in the development of TNBC and offer promising therapeutic interventions.

Key Words
  • Breast cancer
  • triple-negative breast cancer
  • apoptosis
  • bioinformatics

Breast cancer (BC) is the most common malignant tumor in women and the biggest threat to the health of women worldwide (1). Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), which lacks the expression of the human epidermal growth factor receptor two (HER2), estrogen (ER), and progesterone (PR) receptors, has shown a significant increase in interest in recent years (2). The typical characteristics of this condition are early onset, aggressiveness, earlier local recurrence, distant metastases, insensitivity to endocrine and targeted therapy, the rapid development of treatment resistance, a greater prevalence in premenopausal women under 50, and a poor progression (3). Due to its aggressive biological nature and resistance to current treatments, TNBC is thought to have a poor prognosis (4). However, the exact pathophysiology of BC is still unknown. Understanding the molecular genesis of BC is essential to developing screening indicators and new therapeutic targets for the disease’s prevention and treatment (5). Previous research has revealed a significant association between numerous molecular TNBC genes and therapy (6). According to our previous studies using TNBC cell lines, thymoquinone (TQ) treatment significantly altered the expression of many apoptosis-related genes in MDA-MB-231 and MDA-MB-468 cells (7). Also, the natural compound rosmarinic acid (8) and oleuropein (9) substantially altered the expression of many of the apoptosis mentioned above genes in MDA-MB-231 and MDA-MB-468 TNBC cells.

Meanwhile, the inactivation of proapoptotic proteins or the overexpression of antiapoptotic proteins can cause uncontrolled cell proliferation, leading to cancer. Apoptosis requires the activation of numerous processes, including regulated protein-protein interactions (PPIs) (10). During apoptosis, several proteins are released into the cytoplasm through the intermembrane gap of the mitochondria, activating initiator caspases to start a series of PPIs in the caspase cascade (11). Apoptotic dysregulation is associated with various clinical conditions, including cancer, immunological disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases (12). Therefore, apoptosis-regulated genes might serve as therapeutic implication genes for TNBC.

Understanding the molecular processes underlying carcinogenesis and tumor development requires identifying cancer-related genes. These genes may involve processes or pathways that enable cancer cells to evade growth regulation, metastasis, or invasion (13). Several cancer-related genes have been revealed in the last decade using rapidly developing technologies, particularly high-throughput methods like gene expression microarrays and proteomics (14). For instance, microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization has been used to identify both known and new breast cancer genes (15). Transcriptome sequencing coupled with computational methods (16) has also been used to find genes related to colorectal cancer (17). For example, BRCA1 and BRCA2 in breast cancer (18), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in prostate cancer (19), WAP four-disulfide core domain protein 2 gene (WFDC2) in ovarian cancer (20), and BIRC5 in TNBC (21) are well-known targets for certain cancers. These genes’ complementary biological roles offer hints for studying the biology of cancer. However, the few cancer target genes discovered do not behave as standalone biological units. Integrated omics profiles provide the chance to find more cancer genes through the advancement of sequencing technology (22).

Due to TNBC’s extreme heterogeneity and complexity, it is difficult to fully comprehend the molecular processes that drive tumor growth (23). Researchers have identified potential risk-causing genes in the development of TNBC tumors. An increasing number of genes are strongly connected to TNBC progression due to advancements in experimental methods and high-throughput sequencing technologies (24). The absence of specific and accurate treatment for TNBC is one of the biggest challenges in cancer treatment.

Understanding the underlying molecular mechanism can help develop more effective therapies (4). The molecular mechanisms of cancer and development have been studied using bioinformatics analysis based on gene expression profile data. The usage of public data is growing because of increased availability and reliability in several cancers. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms driving carcinogenesis is required. The public database evaluates candidate genes by monitoring the presence of typical oncogene somatic mutation patterns. It also determines the biological functions of candidate genes through literature curation. The various online tools for gene-wide screening are crucial to understanding cancer pathophysiology. In this study, the data collection from the integrated public databases could support the significance of the genes. Furthermore, the Gene Expression database’s data, PPI network screens of differential genes, and the subset of apoptotic-regulated genes were examined. A PPI network and co-expression integration analysis were employed in this study to find possible risk-causing genes in TNBC. The identified genes are essential in the carcinogenesis and progression of TNBC. Our previous findings confirmed the effects of specific genes that promote the malignant progression of TNBC (7). In addition, the chemoresistance gene “BIRC5” strongly contributes to the poor prognosis of TNBC (21).

Our objective was to expedite the biological networks that characterize apoptosis-regulated genes/pathways that may be involved in the carcinogenesis of TNBC. A thorough examination of protein-protein interactions may make it easier to pinpoint the pathways and genes that impact TNBC. Significant advancement has been made in our understanding of apoptosis on the connectivity of death pathways.

This study offers a theoretical framework for investigating potential TNBC treatment targets. Overall, our findings can serve as a roadmap for investigating the biological processes involved in the carcinogenesis of TNBC and offer different perspectives on how TNBC might be treated in the future.

Materials and Methods

Data source and selection of genes. The apoptotic pathway’s dysregulation or dysfunction is a contributing factor in a variety of clinical disorders, including cancer. The apoptotic pathway-related genes have previously undergone experimental validation and statistical analysis in our lab (7). Based on comparing the control and the treatment groups of our TNBC cells (MDA-MB-231 and 468), we identified 27 apoptotic-regulated genes from 88 genes. The PCR based identified genes are AKT1, APAF1, BAD, BAX, BIK, DAPK1, FADD, TNF, TNFRSF10A, TNFRSF10B, TNFRSF11B, TNFRSF21, BAG1, ACTB, TRAF2, TRAF3, BCL10, BNIP3, CASP2, CASP3, CASP4, CASP9, DFFA, DIABLO, GADD45A, MCL1, and TP53. Based on these genes, the gene expression profile and human PPI network were built and examined using an integrated bioinformatics tool.

Use of the University of Alabama at Birmingham Cancer (UALCAN) database. UALCAN database is a portal for facilitating tumor gene expression and survival analyses (25, 26). In this database, we set the conditions for filtering and data mining. The screening conditions set in this study are: “Input gene: Apoptotic genes”, “Link for analysis: expression”, “Analysis Type: Triple-negative breast Cancer vs. Normal”, “Cancer Type: Breast invasive carcinoma”, “Data Type: TCGA dataset” (26).

Use of bc- GeneExMiner v4.5 mRNA expression database (BCGM). Breast Cancer Gene-Expression Miner v4.5 (bc-GenExMiner v4.5) was used to explore the expression of various apoptotic-related genes in this study. The screening conditions set in this study are: “Analysis: expression-targeted”, “gene expression data: DNA microarrays”, Population: TNBC(IHC) and/or Basal-like (PAM50)”. The Breast Cancer Gene-Expression Miner v4.5 (bc-GenExMiner v4.5 was used (27-29).

Use of TNM Plotter. The TNM plotter (https://www.tnmplot.com, accessed on August 2, 2022) is an online tool that allows for a real-time comparison of gene-expression changes in the tumor, normal, and metastatic tissues across many platforms. The program combined and examined all selected gene expressions using the TCGA datasets. The Mann-Whitney test was employed to directly compare tumor and normal tissues (30).

Gene ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analysis. The functional annotation bioinformatics microarray analysis tool DAVID (https://david.ncifcrf.gov) was used to import the DEG data. GO analysis was used to analyze the biological processes (BP) that these genes are mostly engaged in, and functional enrichment of DEGs was performed. The inclusion criterion was a false discovery rate (FDR) of less than 0.05. ConsensusPathDB, a database of molecular functional interactions, was used mostly for the analysis of cancer-related pathways (http://cpdb.molgen.mpg.de/). Cellular components, molecular function, and biological process are the three basic subcategories of Gene Ontology (GO). To provide a thorough understanding of the biological information of the genes, proteins, and their associated pathways, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) (31) pathway analyses for the DEGs from the clusters were carried out using the functional annotation tool called Enrichr (32, 33) (https://amp.pharm.mssm.edu/Enrichr). The threshold parameter for screening the KEGG enrichment pathways was set at an adjusted p-value of <0.05. The Rich factor, the ratio of the number of DEGs to the number of genes identified in the related pathway, was used to rank the KEGG results. Accordingly, the degree of enrichment increases with an increase in the Rich factor. All data were accessed on June 30, 2022. ShinyGO (v.0.61), which may be found online at http://bioinformatics.sdstate.edu/go/ (accessed on July 17, 2022), was used for the analysis of Enriched biological processes.

PANTHER Classification System analysis. The apoptosis-regulated genes were then uploaded to PANTHER (Protein ANalysis THrough Evolutionary Relationships) Classification System online to find gene/protein networks that were over-represented within the gene collection. The PANTHER website (http://pantherdb.org/about.jsp, viewed on June 21, 2022) offers tools for functional analysis of gene or protein lists. Gene lists, for example, can be graphically evaluated using sortable functional classes and pie or bar charts or statistically using overrepresentation or enrichment tests (34-37).

Protein-protein interaction (PPI) network construction and subnetwork analysis. To predict functional connections of proteins, the STRING (search tool for retrieval of interacting genes) database was used (http://www.string-db.org/, version 9.1, accessed on June 25/2022) (38), which combines known and predicted PPIs. Currently, STRING includes 24.6 million proteins from 5090 different species (39). The STRING program was used to look for potential relationships between DEGs and other tissues. The PPI networks were built using active interaction sources such as combined score (>0.7), text mining (score >0.7), experimentally determined interaction (score >0), databases, co-expression, and species limited to “Homo sapiens” and an interaction score >0.4. For PPIs, there are often three different types of confidence scores: Low confidence is defined as a score of 0.4, medium confidence as a score of 0.4, and high confidence as a score of >0.7 (40). To get more accurate results in the current investigation, we chose a high confidence score, which allowed us to rule out PPIs with low probability or significance. The PPI network was viewed using Cytoscape software 3.6.1 (41). The following criteria were employed with ClusterONE 1.0 software to find areas of the network that were strongly connected: minimum size=5, minimum density=0.05, and edge weights=combined score. The protein nodes that had no connections with other proteins were deleted. Genes functioned as nodes in the PPI network, while associated interactions were represented by edges. The CentiScaPe plugin for Cytoscape was used to investigate the connectivity degree of each node, which reveals the number of contacts of the related gene. Hub genes were designated nodes with a connectivity score of less than 15. The Molecular Complex Detection plugin (MCODE) (43) also performed protein complex analysis to find the important major clusters in this extensive PPI network. The advanced options were set to a degree cutoff of 2 and a K-Core of 2, respectively. Protein complexes with a score of less than five were chosen as important sub-networks. Additionally, we used the STRING database to perform co-expression analysis on every cluster gene in order to determine which clusters may be co-regulated with other clusters. The results of the co-expression study were then combined to form clusters to determine which clusters are linked to other clusters by co-expression genes. This might be useful for comprehending and forecasting the network analysis clusters that are co-regulated by co-expression genes. The DEGs in all clusters were then analyzed for BP and KEGG pathway enrichment using the Enrichr program (42).

Network analysis. GeneMANIA (www.genemania.org, accessed on August 4, 2022), an online analysis tool that provides protein and genetic co-expression, co-localization, interactions, pathways, and shared protein domains of submitted genes, was used to perform a gene-gene interaction network for selected apoptosis regulated genes (43).

Verification of genes. OS analyses were performed based on the expression and clinical data from KM Plotter (http://www.kmplot.com) (accessed on September 1, 2022) to verify the therapeutic implication of hub genes and their significant genes. KM Plotter used Cox proportional hazards regression were used to perform survival analysis for each gene, and the Benjamini-Hochberg method was used to correct for multiple hypothesis testing (44, 45). We divided the patients into high and low-expression groups according to their average expression value of hub genes, and FDR corrected the p-value of the survival analysis results. The log-rank p-values <0.05 were statistically significant.

Statistical analysis. The TNM plotter web analytic tool was used to analyze tumor and normal-tissue gene expression statistically. Kruskall-Wallis nonparametric test was used to compare measurements across patient groups for overall analyses. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare the normal and tumor samples. The Kaplan-Meier plotter web analytic tool was also used to generate Kaplan-Meier survival plots with the number of people at risk, hazard ratio (HR), 95 percent confidence intervals (CI), and log-rank p-values. The GO-based overrepresentation of a gene list (the analyzed list) compared to a reference homo sapiens gene list was examined using the PANTHER website. After entering the lists, we selected the Fisher’s Exact Test with FDR correction. The FDR is a better correction to apply for this kind of study, especially given the high degree of class overlap. The p-value was set to <0.05 to imply that there was a statistically significant difference in overall survival between the high-expression and low-expression groups.

Results

The expression of apoptosis-regulated genes in BC. We first used TNMplot to examine the gene expression profile in normal and tumor in invasive breast carcinoma. The Gene Signature Analysis uses data from RNA-Seq to determine the means of the selected gene signature across each patient individually and produce a summary plot, as shown in Figure 1A. Compared to normal breast tissue, we found that the combined effect of all the selected gene signature expressions is significantly elevated in the tumor (Kruskall-wallis p<0.0001). We also provide a real-time comparison of changes in gene expression across all 27 genes in the tumor, normal, and metastatic tissues. Figure 1B and Table I show a typical boxplot of the result. When compared to normal, the expression of the genes TNFRSF10A and TNFRSF11B is up-regulated in the tumor but down-regulated in metastasis, with log2FC values of 12.1 and −13.9, 1.2, and - 18.3, respectively. With log2FC values of −7.8 and 19.2, - 68.2 and 2.3, −6.4 and 24.6, respectively, CASP9, DAPK1, and MCL1 gene expression are up-regulated in metastasis but down-regulated in the primary tumor. Even when the value of gene expression varies between tumor and metastasis, GADD45A, CASP4, DIABLO, TNFRSF10B, and TNFRSF21 are down-regulated compared to normal tissue (Table I).

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

Expression of apoptosis-regulated genes in breast cancer (BC). (A) The overall effect of 27 apoptosis-regulated genes in invasive breast carcinoma. Kruskall-Wallis nonparametric test is used to compare measurements across patient groups for overall analyses. (B) Differential gene expression analysis in tumor, normal,] and metastatic tissues of the 27 apoptosis genes in breast invasive carcinoma patients according to TNMplot.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

An overview of the means of the selected apoptosis genes in breast cancer (BC) in multiple gene analyses using RNA-seq-based data. The Log2FC is presented compared to normal.

The expression of the apoptosis-regulated genes in the BC and TNBC. We then analyzed and used the UALCAN database to investigate the level of apoptosis-related gene expression in normal breast tissue, TNBC, and invasive breast carcinoma. After inserting our list of genes into the database, the expression of apoptotic genes in normal breast tissue, invasive breast carcinoma, and TNBC is depicted in Figure 2. BIK, BAX, BAG1, TRAF2, TRAF3, CASP2, CASP3, AKT1, FADD, and DIABLO are all increased in the tumor compared to normal breast tissue, but TNFRSF10A, TNFRSF11B, BCL10, BNIP3, MCL1, CASP9, and APAF1 have not demonstrated a significant difference between tumor and normal breast tissue. At the same time, the rest of the genes were down-regulated in the tumor (Figure 2A and Table II). The heatmap expression shows that TNF, TNFRSF21, BAD, BIK, BAX, TRAF2, CASP2, CASP3, AKT1, FADD, and DIABLO are all up-regulated in TNBC compared to normal breast tissue. At the same time, TNFRSF10A, TNFRSF10B, TNFRSF11B, BCL10, BNIP3, MCL1, APAF1, and DFFA have no significant differences between normal and TNBC, and the rest of the genes are down-regulated in TNBC (Figure 2B, Table II). The levels of apoptosis-related gene expression in invasive breast carcinoma and TNBC were compared for observation. When we examined the expression between the normal breast tissue in TNBC and BRCA as well as in the tumor, there was a noticeable difference in gene expression, even though the expression levels in the tumor and normal breast tissue were indistinguishable.

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

The apoptosis-regulated genes in tumor and normal breast tissue using UALCAN heatmap expression. (A) The difference in expression between the invasive breast tumor and normal breast tissue. (B) the differences in expression between tumor and normal breast tissue in TNBC.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

The p-value of each gene expression compared to normal breast tissue expression. The p-value is directly extracted from the UALCAN database without the need for additional statistical analysis.

Individual apoptosis gene expression profile for TNBC patients based on the UALCAN database. In our findings, according to the UALCAN repository database, TNBC patients have higher TNF mRNA expression than normal breast tissue (NBT), with average transcripts of 3.3 vs. 1.64, respectively (Figure 3A). Even though there is no statistical difference between TNBC and the NBT, TNBC patients have lower TNFRSF10A mRNA expression, with average transcripts of 5.6 vs. 7.0, respectively (p>0.05, Figure 3B). TNBC has lower expression compared to NBT, with average transcripts of 18.71 vs. 21.30 for TNFRSF10B (p>0.05, Figure 3C) and 1.48 vs. 4.2 (p<0.5) for TNFSRF11B (Figure 3D), but a higher expression for TNFSRF21 (38.9 vs. 38.2, p<0.05, Figure 3E) as well as lower BAG1 expression (p<0.05, Figure 3F). Although there is no statistical difference between TNBC and NBT, TNBC patients have higher expression of BCL10 (13.0 vs.12.3, Figure 3G) and lower mRNA expression of BNIP3 (44.7 vs. 55.0, Figure 3H) and MCL1 (205.5 vs. 269.5, Figure 3I). TNBC patients have significantly higher mRNA expression of BIK (10.13 vs. 8.86, p<0.001, Figure 3J), BAX (89.99 vs. 39.5, p<0.01, Figure 3K), BAD (64.4 vs. 57.1, p<0.01, Figure 3L), and lower DFFA expression (18.4 vs. 19.0, Figure 3M) compared to NBT. TNBC patients have considerably higher mRNA expression of DAPK1 (12.5 vs. 7.1, Figure 3N), FADD (31.0 vs. 2.01, Figure 3O), and DIABLO (35.4 vs. 29, Figure 3P). TNBC patients have significantly higher CASP2 (p<0.0001, Figure 3Q) and CASP3 mRNA expression (27.78 vs. 18.62, Figure 3R) but lower CASP4 (48.2 vs. 63.8, Figure 3S) and CASP9 (13.6 vs. 9.8, Figure 3T) mRNA expression compared to NBT. TARF2 (21.2 vs. 9.8, Figure 3U), TRAF3 (9.1 vs. 7.5, Figure 3V), TP53 (74.8 vs. 67.3, Figure 3W), and ACTB (p<0.05, Figure 3X) are higher mRNA expression compared to NBT. TNBC patients had significantly lower GADD45A (28.1 vs. 35.3, Figure 3Y), higher APAF1 (108.3 vs. 105.9, p<0.0001, Figure 3Z), and no difference in AKT1 (108.3 vs. 105.9, p>0.05, Figure 3AA) mRNA expression compared to NBT.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Apoptosis gene expression profile based on the UALCAN databases. The difference between normal breast tissue (NBT) and TNBC is shown as *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, and ns: nonsignificant.

Individual apoptosis gene expression profile for TNBC patients based on BCGM databases. In our findings, TNBC patients have higher TNF (0.3094 vs. −0.0491, Figure 4A), TNSRSF10A (Figure 4B), TNSRSF10B (0.1397 vs. −0.0777, p<0.05) (Figure 4C), nearly equal TNFRSF11B expression (0.1740 vs. 0.1525, p>0.05, Figure 4D), and higher TNFRSF21 (0.6860 vs. −0.1520, p<0.05, Figure 4E) mRNA expression compared to non-TNBC patients. TNBC patients have lower BAG1 expression than non-TNBC patients, which is consistent with UALCAN data (p<0.0001, Figure 4F). TNBC has higher BCL10 (−0.0179 vs. −0.0580, Figure 4G), BNIP3 (0.2424 vs. 0.160, Figure 4H), MCL1 (0.2034 vs. −0.0496, Figure 4I in contrast to the UALCAN database), lower BIK expression (−0.6572 vs. 0.0107, p<0.0001, Figure 4J, contradicted with UALCAN data), higher BAX expression (p<0.0001, Figure 4K) and lower BAD expression (p<0.0001, Figure 4L contradicts UALCAN data) compared to non-TNBC patients. TNBC patients have higher DFFA expression (0.4543 vs. −0.0523, Figure 4M, contradicts UALCAN data), higher DAPK1 expression (0.7553 vs. −0.0562, Figure 4N, similar to UALCAN), lower FADD expression (−0.3725 vs. −0.0511, Figure 4O, contradicts UALCAN data) and lower DIABLO expression (−0.0892 vs. 0.0504, Figure 4P, contradicts UALCAN data) compared to non-TNBC patients. TNBC patients have higher mRNA CASP2 expression (p<0.0001, Figure 4Q), CASP3 (0.2315 vs. −0.0471, Figure 4R), and CASP4 (0.1313 vs. −0.0902, Figure 4S), but lower CASP9 (−0.2539 vs. 0.0368, Figure 4T) mRNA expressions compared to non-TNBC patients. TNBC patients had higher TRAF2 expression (0.1958 vs. −0.0242, Figure 4U, similar to UALCAN), higher TRAF3 expression (0.2767 vs. −0.0605, Figure 4V), no significant change in TP53 expression (−0.0297 vs. −0.0569, Figure 4W), lower ACTB expression (p<0.0001, Figure 4X, consistent with UALCAN data), no significant difference in GADD45A expression (−0.0068 vs. −0.0176, Figure 4Y, in contrast to UALCAN), comparable APAF1 expression (contrary to UALCAN findings, Figure 4Z), and lower AKT1 expression (0.3564 vs. 0.0723, Figure 4AA, in contrast to UALCAN) compared to non-TNBC patients.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Apoptosis gene expression profile based on the bc- GeneExMiner v4.5 mRNA expression (BCGM) databases. The difference between normal breast tissue (NBT) and TNBC is shown as ****p<0.0001, ns: nonsignificant. The values are expressed as mean±standard deviation.

When the expression of the investigated apoptosis-related genes was compared across the UALCAN, and BCGM online data sets, BNIP3, TNFRSF10A, TNFRSF10B, MCL1, CASP4, and DFFA were up-regulated in BCGM and downregulated or non-significantly changed on UALCAN. At the same time, BIK, AKT1, BAD, FADD, DIABLO, and CASP9 were down-regulated in BCGM and up-regulated in UALCAN databases. These differences may demonstrate the heterogeneity of TNBC and other factors, which need further research. Table III summarizes the expression of apoptotic genes between online data sources.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Comparable apoptosis gene expression of TNBC and non-TNBC patients from two online databases. The p-values for each database shown in the table are compared with normal breast tissue. The p-value is directly extracted from the UALCAN and BCGM databases without the need for additional statistical analysis.

Functional enrichment analyses. Gene ontology (GO) was used to find distinctive biological characteristics in the RNA-seq raw data. Utilizing Enrichr, a separate Gene Ontology Enrichment Analysis tool was conducted. These significantly enhanced terms could help us understand DEGs’ function in TNBC. Based on the GO term enrichment analysis results, they were divided into functional categories for biological process (BP), molecular function (MF), cellular component, and protein class. Cellular process (GO:0009987), which has about 21 apoptosis-regulated genes, is the top category in the BP, followed by biological regulation (GO:0065007), which has 20 genes. Biological adhesion (GO:0022610) and signaling (GO:0023052), on the other hand, was the lowest categories in terms of the number of apoptosis-regulated genes involved in the process (Figure 5A). With eight apoptosis-regulated genes respectively, binding (GO:0005488) and catalytic activity (GO:0003824) are the most significant categories in the molecular function; by contrast, molecular transducer activity (GO:0060089) was the lowest, with only one gene in the function (Figure 5B). Only two categories in cellular components were identified: cellular, anatomical entity (GO:0110165), and protein-containing complex (GO:0032991), which have 19 and 4 apoptosis-regulated genes, respectively (Figure 5C). In the PANTHER protein class, the protein modifying enzyme (PC00260), which has six apoptosis-regulated genes, is the next highest category, followed by transmembrane signal receptor (PC00197), which has four apoptosis-regulated genes (Figure 5D).

Figure 5.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 5.

Gene ontology (GO) analysis. (A) Biological process, (B) molecular function, (C) cellular components, and (D) protein class. The color of the bar graph represents the specific cellular activities, while the height represents the number of genes associated with each process.

The overlapping DEGs were subjected to GO enrichment analyses. Transcription regulator activity, molecular transducer activity, binding, molecular function regulator, catalytic activity, and transporter activity were all highly enriched in the DEGs according to molecular function classification. The 11 biological processes that these DEGs were involved in are shown in Table IV, where biological adhesion, biological regulation, cellular process, developmental process, immune system process, localization, locomotion, metabolic process, multicellular organismal process, response to stimulus, and signaling are all intimately related to the development of cancer. GO analysis revealed that transmembrane signal receptors, intracellular signal molecules, gene-specific transcriptional regulators, cytoskeletal protein, chaperon, and protein modifying enzymes were notably enriched in protein class. According to the results of the GO analysis, cellular, anatomical entities, and protein-containing complexes were primarily abundant in cellular components (Table IV).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

GO analysis of the apoptosis-related genes associated with the respective functional categories.

PANTHER pathway analysis. After characterizing the GO analysis, we examined the apoptosis-related genes that contribute to the relevant cellular pathways. We identified 29 pathways using the PANTHER pathway data analysis, including the p53 pathway, angiogenesis, apoptosis signaling pathway, and the Alzheimer’s disease presenilin pathway. As predicted, the apoptosis signaling pathway (p<0.0001) is one of these pathways, involving 15 genes, followed by the p53 pathway (p<0.001) comprising eight genes. Only one gene is involved in each of the 17 pathways, which include the EGF receptor, cadherin, and Alzheimer’s disease presenilin pathway (Figure 6). AKT1 is the most frequent gene involved in 17 various pathways, followed by CASP9 and ACTB, each of them involved in 7 different pathways (Table V).

Figure 6.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 6.

PANTHER pathway analysis. The height of the bar indicates the number of genes on the corresponding pathways. Colors indicate the specific pathways. After inserting 27 genes, we found 29 various pathways which directly or indirectly contributed to apoptosis.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table V.

Apoptosis genes involved in various signaling pathways in the PANTHER pathway analysis.

Gene Ontology enrichment analysis. Based on the data, we also conducted a ShinyGO Gene Ontology enrichment analysis employing differentially expressed genes and proteins. Figure 7 provides hierarchal clustering depictions of richer biological processes (A), molecular function (B), and cellular components (C). We found the enrichment of 10 identical biological processes involved in the apoptosis pathways, indicating that similar cellular mechanisms were activated. Regulation of programmed cell death, regulation of the apoptotic process, post-translational regulation of programmed cell death, post-translational apoptotic process, and apoptotic signaling pathway are the most important biological processes, indicated by bigger dots. Cysteine-type endopeptidase activity is involved in the execution phase of apoptosis and apoptotic signaling pathway, and tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily binding is the most enriched in the molecular function. CD40 receptor complex, Bcl-2 family protein complex, and death-inducing signaling complex are the most significantly enhanced cellular components. The extrinsic apoptosis pathway participates in the biological process along with BAD, BAX, TNFRSF10A, CASP2, TNFRSF10B, TRAF2, CASP9, AKT1, BCL10, MCL1, CASP3, FADD, and DIABLO, whereas the intrinsic apoptosis pathway is composed of BAD, BAX, CASP2, APAF1, TNFRSF10B, TRAF2, CASP9, TP53, AKT1, MCL1, CASP3, BNIP3, DIABLO, and CASP4. The regulation of programmed cell death has the least fold enrichment (11.53). In contrast, cellular response to mechanical stimulus has the highest fold enrichment (94.98) and is followed by activation of cysteine-type endopeptidase activity involved in the apoptotic process (84.43). In contrast, only nine genes regulated the cellular response to mechanical stimuli, whereas 23 genes regulated apoptosis and programmed cell death, respectively (Table VI).

Figure 7.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 7.

Enriched biological processes, molecular function, and cellular components. Following analysis of the gene array data, significantly enhanced processes are displayed as an interactive hierarchical clustering tree with ShinyGO. (A) Biological processes, (B) molecular function, and (C) cellular components that share a lot of genes tend to group. Larger dots indicate more significant p-values. Following examination of the genes, enriched processes that were similar were highlighted and marked.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table VI.

The different pathways in the biological processes. False discovery rate (FDR) expresses the enrichment, and the number and names of each gene involved in each pathway are displayed.

Protein-protein interaction (PPI) network construction. Next, we performed a PPI on these apoptosis-regulated genes, which is essential in providing insight into how proteins work and facilitated the ability to model functional pathways and reveal the biological processes’ molecular mechanisms. To construct a PPI network, we used Cystoscope and STRING. Each edge is given a score to serve as the edge weight, which is used to compute the interaction confidence in the network. This rating reflects the assessed likelihood that a specific interaction has biological significance. PPIs with a confidence score greater than 0.7 were chosen to guarantee the quality of interactions and reduce false-positive outcomes. In the STRING database, the PPI data for DEGs in the TNBC cell line indicated 27 nodes and 188 edges (Figure 8A). The 27 apoptosis-regulated genes were clustered into 5 different groups, of which cluster 1 is comprised of five proteins (BCL10, TRAF2, TRAF3, and TNF), whereas cluster 2 is formed by the combination of seven proteins (AKT1, BAX, BAG1, DAPK1, GADD45A, MCL1, and TP53) (Figure 8B). The protein interactions with the highest combined scores (>0.9995) in the analysis of protein connectivity were APAF1 with CASP9 and CASP3, FADD with TNF, TNFRSF11B, and TNFRSF10A, TNF with TRAF2, and BAX with MCL1 (Table VI).

Figure 8.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 8.

The 27-apoptosis regulation protein-protein interactions (PPIs). Network analysis from the PPI network showed TNBC. (A) Minimum required interaction score: we set up the highest confidence at 0.9000 using Cytoscape. The nodes’ sizes indicated the count of interactions (degree) in the PPI network. There are 188 edges and 27 nodes in the circular structure of the protein-protein interaction, with an average node degree of 13.9 and an average local clustering coefficient of 0.76. The red line indicates the presence of fusion evidence; the green line is neighborhood evidence; the blue line is co-occurrence evidence; the purple line is experimental evidence; the yellow line is text mining evidence; the light blue is database evidence; the black line is co-expression evidence. (B) clustered PPIs. Twenty-seven genes were predicted from a cluster analysis using STRING. Associations within the same cluster are indicated by solid and dotted lines. Different colors denote various types of interactions.

When we examined the PP1s between the genes that regulate apoptosis, AKT1 interacts with CASP3, TP53, TNF, and CASP9 with automated text mining scores of 0.882, 0.877, 0.826, and 0.814, respectively. APAF1 forms an interaction with CASP9, CASP3, BAX, MCL1, and CASP2, with automated textmining scores of 0.995, 0.909, 0.749, 0.721, and 0.715, respectively. TRAF2, BIK, and DAPK1 only interact with TRAF3, MCL1, and TP53, scoring 0.978, 0.82, and 0.919 in automatic textmining tests. Both CASP3 and CASP9 interact with FADD, MCL1, TNF, TNFRSRF10A, and TNFRSF10. Additionally, CASP3 significantly forms PPIs with CASP9, DFFA, and TP53, while CASP9 with DIABLO. Table VII demonstrates the top high score protein-protein interactions.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table VII.

Protein-protein interactions of the apoptosis regulatory genes having a high score for automated textmining, combined, edge betweenness, and experimentally determined interaction scores.

Functional analysis of the protein network. The GeneMANIA database was used to construct the gene-gene interaction (GGI) network of the genes that regulate apoptosis (Figure 9). A total of 27 genes were inputted, and 20 related genes were enriched in this network based on shared protein domains, predicted, co-localization, physical interactions, co-expression, pathways, and genetic interactions. Physical interaction accounted for around 35.50% of gene-gene interactions, followed by predicted (16.69%) and pathways (14.56%).

Figure 9.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 9.

Gene-gene interaction network among the apoptosis-regulated genes predicted by GeneMANIA. Different colors indicate various networks of gene-gene interactions. A total of 27 genes were input shown in big blue black color circle, and 20 related genes, shown in the small blue black color circle, were enriched in this network based on shared protein domains with 47 total genes, 0 attributes, and 1411 total links.

Transcription factor PPI analysis. From the results of the transcription factor, PPI analysis shows the number of apoptosis-regulated genes interacting with the transcription factors in Table VIII. In the top 10 transcription factors, the androgen receptor (AR), a nuclear hormone receptor transcription factor, interacts with five apoptosis-regulated genes (p<0.0001; q<0.01), followed by Retinoic Acid Receptor Alpha (RARA) (p<0.0001; q<0.01) and ring finger protein (RNF2) (p<0.0001; q<0.01), each of which interacts with four apoptosis-regulated genes. The most interactive apoptotic-regulated gene, TP53, interacts with seven transcription factors (AR, RNF2, NR4A1, ATF3, TFAP2A, STAT1, and SREBF2), followed by AKT1, which interacts with five (AR, RARA, IRF3, NR4A1, and STAT1), and CASP3, interacts with four (AR, RNF2, TFAP2A, and SREBF2) transcription factors (Table VIII).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table VIII.

Among the 27 genes, the top 10 significant p-values and q-values for transcription factor PPIs are displayed.

Survival analysis verification of key genes. To verify the therapeutic implications of 27 hub genes, KM Plotter was applied to 278 TNBC patients for OS analysis. Among the 27 pivot genes, the survival rate of CASP2, CASP3, DAPK1, TNF, TARF2, and TRAF3 in the OS analysis was significantly different between the high and low expression groups (p<0.05, Figure 10A-F). OS in months of TNBC patients having increased expression of these six important genes are 85.2, 97.48, 95.08, 98.14, 85.2, and 98.14 for CASP2, DAPK1, TRAF2, TNF, CASP3 and TRAF3 respectively with their corresponding low expression of 44.4, 37.64, 48, 47.51, 0.77 and 44.4 months, respectively.

Figure 10.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 10.

Overall survival (OS) analysis of 27hub genes in TNBC patients by KM Plotter (n=278). (A) CASP2, (B) DAPK1, (C) TNF, (D) TRAF2, (E) APONON/CASP3, (F) TRAF3, (G) AKT1, (H) CED4/APAF1, (I) FADD, (J) BAD, (K) TNFRSF10A, (L) DFFA, (M) TRAIL-R2/TNFRSF10B, (N) OPG-TNFRSF11B, (O) TNFRSF21, (P) BAG1, (Q) ACTB, (R) DIABLO, (S) BAX, (T) BCL10, (U) BNIP3, (V) BIK, (W) CASP4, (X) GADD45A, (Y) MCL1, (Z) TP53, (AA) CASP9.

Protein expression for validation of key genes in breast carcinoma. We examined immunohistochemistry images of human normal and BC tissues stained with antibodies against the TRAF2, TRAF3, DAPK1, CASP2, CAPS3, and TNF protein from the Human Protein Atlas (https://www.proteinatlas.org/, accessed on December 12, 2022), to validate the gene-expression data. In contrast to BC tissues, which had a mixed response of “no detected” or “low” staining with “negative or low” intensities, all normal tissues were reported to have “moderate, medium, or strong” staining with “strong or moderate” intensities (Figure 11A-F). This suggests that breast carcinomas have no, low or moderate levels of the proteins TRAF2, TRAF3, DAPK1, CASP2, CAPS3, and TNF.

Figure 11.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 11.

Breast cell cancer selected protein expression. (A-F) Immunohistochemistry showing the expression of theTRAF2, TRAF3, DAPK1, TNF, CASP2 and CASP3 proteins in normal breast tissue and breast cancer as shown on the Human Protein Atlas website.

Discussion

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is regarded as an aggressive type of BC. It is characterized by the lack of expression of progesterone, estrogen, and human epidermal growth factor receptors, which accounts for 15-20% of all BCs (46). TNBC has historically had limited treatment options compared to other BC types. Even though chemoresistance and undesired side effects are the primary problems, the mainstay of treatment for TNBC remains chemotherapy, despite the emergence of new biological and targeted agents.

One of the main goals of cancer research is to identify genetic markers associated with the onset of cancer. Targeting genes only expressed in cancer cells can reveal novel diagnostic and therapeutic indicators (47). It is preferable to incorporate data from numerous comparable studies to undertake an integrative analysis to find and define the biological functions of cancer-associated genes. Multiple gene expression analysis methods have been created and employed for many purposes, including classifying tumor types and identifying tumor stages. Because of the limits of clinicopathologic characteristics, predicting the potential therapeutic genes of cancer is still difficult for many malignancies, which is important for cancer management. Identification of gene expression profiles can aid in the improvement of patient care by offering directions for individualized treatment strategies (48). Twenty-seven apoptosis-regulated genes were included for statistical comparison in the current study. It was possible to identify statistically significantly expressed genes in TNBC using various online bioinformatic tools. An extensive bioinformatics investigation of these genes identified critical biological functions enriched in them. Further research into the biology of TNBC will benefit from these expanded functionalities or pathways, which may also pave the path for developing novel diagnostic and therapeutic markers.

Gene expression of BNIP3, TNFRSF10B, MCL1, and CASP4 was up-regulated in BCGM and down-regulated in UALCAN. At the same time, BIK, AKT1, BAD, FADD, DIABLO, and CASP9 were down-regulated in BCGM and up-regulated in UALCAN databases. These differences may demonstrate the distinct gene expression patterns of TNBC patients, which require further research.

Understanding the role of PPI in inhibiting apoptosis could provide a foundation for understanding the biology of cancer as an integrated system (49). Numerous studies have used PPI networks to identify potential genes (50-52). Most biological networks are scale-free networks, meaning they are characterized by having innumerable hubs with many interactions. Several protein-protein interactions are required for the activation of caspases, which are essential for apoptosis. For instance, procaspase-8, the adaptor molecule Fas-associated protein with death domain (FADD), and caspase-8 sequentially oligomerize to activate caspase-8, whereas procaspase-9 is triggered by the interaction of at least cytochrome c, Apaf-1, and caspase-9 to create an apoptosome (53), the PPI data can be used in conjunction with GO functional analysis (52, 54, 55).

Furthermore, GO functional analysis also demonstrated that the DEGs were mainly involved in cellular processes, biological regulation, response to stimulus, biological adhesion, metabolic process, and cell-cell signaling based on the analysis of biological processes. Gene expression regulation, protein modification, or interaction with a protein or substrate molecule are just a few of the ways that biological processes are regulated. Cellular processes, stimulus-response, biological regulation, and cell signaling make up 75.5% of all biological processes. TRAF3, TNFRSF10A, BAX, DIABLO, BCL10, TNFRSF10B, MCL1, TRAF2, CASP9, DAPK1, AKT1, BNIP3, and TNF are all considerably enriched in all of them. These processes are regulated in various ways, such as through altering the expression of genes, altering protein expressions, or interacting with proteins (56). Binding and catalytic activity contribute to 66.6% of the molecular function, as indicated in Table IV. Except for BCL10 and TRAF2, which are present in both, binding is enriched for BAX, MCL1, ACTB, TP53, BAG1, and TNF, whereas catalytic activity is enriched for CASP2, CASP4, CASP9, DAPK1, CASP3, and AKT1. Cellular anatomical entities make up 82.2% of the cellular components that are enriched in TRAF3, TNFRSF10A, BAX, DIABLO, BCL10, CASP2, GADD45A, TNFRSF21, TNFRSF10B, CASP4, MCL1, TRAF2, CASP9, DAPK1, CASP3, ACTB, BNIP3, BAG1, and TNF. The molecular function and cellular component have played a significant role in regulating apoptosis (57). The genes mentioned above in the molecular and cellular components may have a direct or indirect role in controlling their specific role in apoptosis.

Transcription factors (TFs) are significant regulators of tissue growth and embryonic development, processes that, if controlled improperly, can lead to cancer and other diseases. TFs also play critical roles in regulating various cellular functions (58). Therefore, establishing a systems-level understanding of the TF network would provide a crucial foundation for future research and therapeutic methods. In our analysis, AR, RARA, RNF2, IRF3, Tp53, NR4A1, ATF3, TFAP2A, STAT1, and SREBF2 were the top 10 TF interactors that were most frequently seen. Out of the 27 investigated genes, the following apoptotic genes have been associated with these TFs: CASP3, BAG1, AKT1, TP53, ACTB, APAF1, GADD45A, CASP9, TRAF3, BAX, DIABLO, DAPK1, TNFRSF10B, and FADD. TP53 is the most frequently apoptosis-regulated gene that interacts with the seven TF listed above.

Our findings demonstrated that AR binds TP53, ACTB1, BAG1, AKT1, and CASP3. Previous research showed that the JNK kinase MEKK1, which induces apoptosis in prostate cancer cells, is regulated by the activation of the AR (59). Similar studies revealed that in transgenic mice and cultured cells, AR-dependent apoptosis was seen after the probasin promoter directed the AR to the prostate cancer cells (60). Both AR-dependent and AR-independent pathways can be used by several substances to cause apoptosis. Because the AR is believed necessary for nuclear DHT function, ligand-dependent events coincide with AR-mediated nuclear events (61). As a result, the current research shows that apoptosis genes may control apoptosis in TNBC by activating or deactivating in response to interaction with the AR transcription factor; however, more research is required.

RARA has been shown to regulate the cell cycle and proliferation and initiate and control apoptosis in breast and pancreatic cancer cells (62, 63). Other studies confirmed that RARA caused apoptosis in leukemic cells by reducing Bcl-2 expression (62) and by enhancing TRAIL in human non-small cell lung cancer and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) cell lines (64). In line with these findings, RARA has been found to down-regulate Bcl-2 expression in acute promyelocytic and myeloid leukemia cancer cells, and sustained overexpression of Bcl-2 has been demonstrated to confer resistance to apoptosis (65). These results imply that RARA interacts with apoptosis-regulated genes, which may be related to increased or suppressed apoptosis in TNBC.

According to our results, RNF2 interacts with CASP3, CASP9, TP53, and ACTB. In a wide range of cancer types, including breast, ovarian, pancreatic, bladder, melanoma, and lymphoma, RNF2 has been reported to be highly expressed (66-68). RNF2 expression is positively correlated with tumor progression and shortened survival. Hence, RNF2 is thought to be a potential therapeutic target for these cancer types. Furthermore, research has shown that RNF2 knockdown causes cell cycle arrest, triggers apoptosis, and inhibits proliferation in prostate cancer cells (69). Studies on colorectal cancer cells showed that RNF2 binds to p53 directly and encourages p53 ubiquitination, which prevents apoptosis. Similarly, in RNF2-knocked down cells, p53 protein levels were higher, its half-life was longer, and its ubiquitination was lower. In contrast, p53 protein levels, half-lives, and ubiquitination were all lowered in cells overexpressing RNF2 (70). Our findings imply that RNF2 may contribute to TNBC progression by preventing gene expression in apoptosis, including TP53 and caspases, and it might be an ideal target for TNBC prevention or treatment.

According to previous studies, IRF3 induced apoptosis in BC cells (71), and IRF3 signaling is essential for triggering apoptosis in hormone-sensitive prostate cancer cells by activating intrinsic and extrinsic apoptotic pathways (72). On the other hand, clear cell renal cell carcinoma abundantly expressed IRF3, and its overexpression was strongly associated with worse clinical outcomes and overall adverse survival (73). Increasing proapoptotic protein expression in BC cells increases cytoplasmic NR4A1 and contributes to the process of apoptosis (74). ATF3 is a significant regulator of Kruppel-like factor 6-induced apoptosis in prostate cancer cells (75) and enhances doxorubicin-induced apoptosis in TNBC cells (76). In BC cells, STAT1 has been associated with the suppression of cell growth and apoptosis induction (77).

Similarly, STAT1 modulates chemotherapy-induced apoptosis in MDA-MB 435 BC cells (78). Up-regulated SREBP1 expression promotes breast cancer cell growth and proliferation, is positively correlated with tumor metastasis, and predicts a poor progression in individuals with breast cancer (79, 80). SREBP1 activation has been seen in human glioblastoma cell lines (81). Additionally, research has indicated that men with prostate cancer had higher levels of SREBP1 expression (82). Taken together, these TFs may be a promising target for TNBC treatment and prevention since they may directly or indirectly influence the progression of TNBC by regulating the expression of genes that control apoptosis.

On MDA-MB-231 and MDA-MB-468 triple-negative breast cancer cells, muscadine grape extracts showed substantial anticancer activity (83). Previous studies demonstrated that various natural compounds have significantly targeted apoptosis-regulated genes. In TNBC, several natural compounds target some of these apoptosis-regulated genes, which may be useful to consider as alternative compounds for chemoprevention. In MDA-MB-231 and MDA-MB-468 TNBC cells, thymoquinone fundamentally altered the expression of numerous apoptotic genes, increased mRNA levels of caspases (CASP 2, 3, 6, 9), BAX, BID, BIK, APAF1, and GADD45A, while down-regulating BIRC5 (7); it also significantly altered several oxidative stress-regulated genes (84, 85). Similar to our previous studies, the natural compound polyphenol gossypol dramatically increased the expression of GADD45A, TNFRSF9, and BNIP3 in MDA-MB231 cells, whereas GADD45A and BNIP3 were increased in MDA-MB468 cells (86). Similarly, curcumin, a well-known natural compound, significantly enhanced Pacilitaxel’s ability to induce apoptosis in TNBC cells by up-regulating CASP3, 8-TP53, BAD, and BAX while down-regulating BCL2 (87, 88). Other comparable studies found that resveratrol dramatically boosted the expression of cleaved-PARP1 and cleaved-Caspase3 while considerably decreasing the expression of full-length PARP1, PCNA, and BCL-2 in MDA-MB-231 TNBC cells (89). Similar studies on natural compounds reported that rosmarinic acid dramatically increased BNIP3’s mRNA expression in the MDA-MB-231 cell line while considerably increasing the transcription of TNF, GADD45A, and BNIP3 in the MDA-MB-468 cell line. Additionally, rosmarinic acid suppressed the expression of TNFRSF11B in MDA-MB-231 cells and TNFSF10 and BIRC5 in MDA-MB-468 cells (8). Another study found that oleuropein significantly activated the transcription of the genes BNIP3, BID, GADD45A, FADD, and TNFRSF21 in MDA-MB-468 cells, while substantially increasing the mRNA expression of TNFRSF10A and CASP4 in MDA-MB-231 cells (9). Similarly, Snail mucus can induce programmed cell death and has therapeutic potential by achieving a chemosensitizing effect in TNBCs (90). These results might imply that natural compounds that target apoptosis-regulated genes could be exploited to be used for chemoprevention or to increase the effectiveness of chemotherapy treatments.

Concerning the study’s limitations, the findings here, like those of other bioinformatic analyses, need to be verified through extensive experimental approaches. TNBC patients have distinct gene expression patterns that limit us from drawing a firm conclusion about our results. Additionally, combining several datasets associated with apoptosis-regulated genes is recommended to acquire a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms of TNBC.

Conclusion

The mechanism of programmed cell death is driven by a highly controlled network of protein-protein interactions. Controlling the outcome of these interactions offers great benefits in treating many human diseases, including cancer. Understanding the basis of these interactions is key to uncovering the gap in the treatment of TNBC. Extensive studies would increase knowledge of the pathogenesis of advanced TNBC and divulge several useful apoptosis-related genes and pathways for further research on their therapeutic implications. We were able to identify crucial PPIs, TF-PPIs, and pathways that can be utilized in TNBC studies. To corroborate the function of the identified genes associated with TNBC, more molecular biological tests, computational procedures, and gene co-expression network analyses are needed. Due to TNBC’s heterogeneity and histologic classification, each TNBC subtype should be analyzed and interpreted independently. Important genes and pathways for normal and tumor samples were found in this instance, allowing the determination of various stages of TNBC progression. Finding genetic or protein alterations may enable researchers to develop new targeted therapies. Researching genetic or protein changes can contribute to predicting whether a person with cancer will likely have a better or worse prognosis. The analysis of genes involved in apoptosis regulation revealed potential TNBC therapeutic targets. Genes, in particular CASP2, CASP3, DAPK1, TNF, TRAF2, and TRAF3, are significantly correlated with poor overall survival in TNBC and may offer new candidate molecules for targeted therapy. These findings show that genetic alterations altering apoptosis could be possible therapeutic targets for TNBC. The six important genes found in this study may help us better understand the molecular mechanisms causing TNBC and facilitate the search for novel treatment targets for TNBC.

Acknowledgements

We thank The Title III program. This research was supported by the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health through Grant Number U54 MD 007582 and Grant Number P20 MD006738.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors declare no conflicts of interest.

  • Authors’ Contributions

    Conceptualization, GMA and KFAS; methodology, GMA; formal analysis, GMA; resources, KFAS; Investigation, GMA; data curation, GMA; writing—original draft preparation, GMA.; writing—review and editing, KFAS, GMA, SSM, ET, and SAA; visualization, KFAS, GMA, SSM, ET, and SAA; supervision, SSM and KFAS; project administration, KFAS; funding acquisition, KFAS. All Authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

  • Received January 11, 2023.
  • Revision received February 9, 2023.
  • Accepted February 19, 2023.
  • Copyright © 2023, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 international license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0).

References

  1. ↵
    1. Momenimovahed Z and
    2. Salehiniya H
    : Epidemiological characteristics of and risk factors for breast cancer in the world. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 11: 151-164, 2019. PMID: 31040712. DOI: 10.2147/BCTT.S176070
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Wu X,
    2. Feng W,
    3. Yang M,
    4. Liu X,
    5. Gao M,
    6. Li X,
    7. Gan L and
    8. He T
    : HC-1119, a deuterated enzalutamide, inhibits migration, invasion and metastasis of the AR-positive triple-negative breast cancer cells. Mol Biol Rep 49(10): 9231-9240, 2022. PMID: 35960413. DOI: 10.1007/s11033-022-07749-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Yin L,
    2. Duan JJ,
    3. Bian XW and
    4. Yu SC
    : Triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtyping and treatment progress. Breast Cancer Res 22(1): 61, 2020. PMID: 32517735. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-020-01296-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Bianchini G,
    2. Balko JM,
    3. Mayer IA,
    4. Sanders ME and
    5. Gianni L
    : Triple-negative breast cancer: challenges and opportunities of a heterogeneous disease. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 13(11): 674-690, 2016. PMID: 27184417. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2016.66
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Testa U,
    2. Castelli G and
    3. Pelosi E
    : Breast cancer: a molecularly heterogenous disease needing subtype-specific treatments. Med Sci (Basel) 8(1): 18, 2020. PMID: 32210163. DOI: 10.3390/medsci8010018
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Cocco S,
    2. Piezzo M,
    3. Calabrese A,
    4. Cianniello D,
    5. Caputo R,
    6. Lauro VD,
    7. Fusco G,
    8. Gioia GD,
    9. Licenziato M and
    10. De Laurentiis M
    : Biomarkers in triple-negative breast cancer: State-of-the-art and future perspectives. Int J Mol Sci 21(13): 4579, 2020. PMID: 32605126. DOI: 10.3390/ijms21134579
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Adinew GM,
    2. Messeha SS,
    3. Taka E,
    4. Badisa RB,
    5. Antonie LM and
    6. Soliman KFA
    : Thymoquinone alterations of the apoptotic gene expressions and cell cycle arrest in genetically distinct triple-negative breast cancer cells. Nutrients 14(10): 2120, 2022. PMID: 35631261. DOI: 10.3390/nu14102120
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Messeha SS,
    2. Zarmouh NO,
    3. Asiri A and
    4. Soliman KFA
    : Rosmarinic acid-induced apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in triple-negative breast cancer cells. Eur J Pharmacol 885: 173419, 2020. PMID: 32750370. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173419
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Messeha SS,
    2. Zarmouh NO,
    3. Asiri A and
    4. Soliman KFA
    : Gene expression alterations associated with oleuropein-induced antiproliferative effects and S-phase cell cycle arrest in triple-negative breast cancer cells. Nutrients 12(12): 3755, 2020. PMID: 33297339. DOI: 10.3390/nu12123755
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Nafis S,
    2. Kalaiarasan P,
    3. Brojen Singh RK,
    4. Husain M and
    5. Bamezai RN
    : Apoptosis regulatory protein-protein interaction demonstrates hierarchical scale-free fractal network. Brief Bioinform 16(4): 675-699, 2015. PMID: 25256288. DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbu036
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Scott NE,
    2. Rogers LD,
    3. Prudova A,
    4. Brown NF,
    5. Fortelny N,
    6. Overall CM and
    7. Foster LJ
    : Interactome disassembly during apoptosis occurs independent of caspase cleavage. Mol Syst Biol 13(1): 906, 2017. PMID: 28082348. DOI: 10.15252/msb.20167067
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Gibellini L and
    2. Moro L
    : Programmed cell death in health and disease. Cells 10(7): 1765, 2021. PMID: 34359935. DOI: 10.3390/cells10071765
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Hanahan D and
    2. Weinberg RA
    : Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144(5): 646-674, 2011. PMID: 21376230. DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Gray JW and
    2. Collins C
    : Genome changes and gene expression in human solid tumors. Carcinogenesis 21(3): 443-452, 2000. PMID: 10688864. DOI: 10.1093/carcin/21.3.443
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Klijn C,
    2. Holstege H,
    3. de Ridder J,
    4. Liu X,
    5. Reinders M,
    6. Jonkers J and
    7. Wessels L
    : Identification of cancer genes using a statistical framework for multiexperiment analysis of nondiscretized array CGH data. Nucleic Acids Res 36(2): e13, 2008. PMID: 18187509. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkm1143
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Li BQ,
    2. Huang T,
    3. Liu L,
    4. Cai YD and
    5. Chou KC
    : Identification of colorectal cancer related genes with mRMR and shortest path in protein-protein interaction network. PLoS One 7(4): e33393, 2012. PMID: 22496748. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033393
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Wu Y,
    2. Wang X,
    3. Wu F,
    4. Huang R,
    5. Xue F,
    6. Liang G,
    7. Tao M,
    8. Cai P and
    9. Huang Y
    : Transcriptome profiling of the cancer, adjacent non-tumor and distant normal tissues from a colorectal cancer patient by deep sequencing. PLoS One 7(8): e41001, 2012. PMID: 22905095. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0041001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Diamond JR,
    2. Borges VF,
    3. Eckhardt SG and
    4. Jimeno A
    : BRCA in breast cancer: from risk assessment to therapeutic prediction. Drug News Perspect 22(10): 603-608, 2009. PMID: 20140280. DOI: 10.1358/dnp.2009.22.10.1440985
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Balk SP,
    2. Ko YJ and
    3. Bubley GJ
    : Biology of prostate-specific antigen. J Clin Oncol 21(2): 383-391, 2003. PMID: 12525533. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2003.02.083
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. ↵
    1. Hellström I,
    2. Raycraft J,
    3. Hayden-Ledbetter M,
    4. Ledbetter JA,
    5. Schummer M,
    6. McIntosh M,
    7. Drescher C,
    8. Urban N and
    9. Hellström KE
    : The HE4 (WFDC2) protein is a biomarker for ovarian carcinoma. Cancer Res 63(13): 3695-3700, 2003. PMID: 12839961.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Adinew GM,
    2. Messeha S,
    3. Taka E and
    4. Soliman KFA
    : The prognostic and therapeutic implications of the chemoresistance gene BIRC5 in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancers (Basel) 14(21): 5180, 2022. PMID: 36358602. DOI: 10.3390/cancers14215180
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Das T,
    2. Andrieux G,
    3. Ahmed M and
    4. Chakraborty S
    : Integration of online omics-data resources for cancer research. Front Genet 11: 578345, 2020. PMID: 33193699. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2020.578345
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Feng Y,
    2. Spezia M,
    3. Huang S,
    4. Yuan C,
    5. Zeng Z,
    6. Zhang L,
    7. Ji X,
    8. Liu W,
    9. Huang B,
    10. Luo W,
    11. Liu B,
    12. Lei Y,
    13. Du S,
    14. Vuppalapati A,
    15. Luu HH,
    16. Haydon RC,
    17. He TC and
    18. Ren G
    : Breast cancer development and progression: Risk factors, cancer stem cells, signaling pathways, genomics, and molecular pathogenesis. Genes Dis 5(2): 77-106, 2018. PMID: 30258937. DOI: 10.1016/j.gendis.2018.05.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Shimelis H,
    2. LaDuca H,
    3. Hu C,
    4. Hart SN,
    5. Na J,
    6. Thomas A,
    7. Akinhanmi M,
    8. Moore RM,
    9. Brauch H,
    10. Cox A,
    11. Eccles DM,
    12. Ewart-Toland A,
    13. Fasching PA,
    14. Fostira F,
    15. Garber J,
    16. Godwin AK,
    17. Konstantopoulou I,
    18. Nevanlinna H,
    19. Sharma P,
    20. Yannoukakos D,
    21. Yao S,
    22. Feng BJ,
    23. Tippin Davis B,
    24. Lilyquist J,
    25. Pesaran T,
    26. Goldgar DE,
    27. Polley EC,
    28. Dolinsky JS and
    29. Couch FJ
    : Triple-negative breast cancer risk genes identified by multigene hereditary cancer panel testing. J Natl Cancer Inst 110(8): 855-862, 2018. PMID: 30099541. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djy106
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Chandrashekar DS,
    2. Karthikeyan SK,
    3. Korla PK,
    4. Patel H,
    5. Shovon AR,
    6. Athar M,
    7. Netto GJ,
    8. Qin ZS,
    9. Kumar S,
    10. Manne U,
    11. Creighton CJ and
    12. Varambally S
    : UALCAN: An update to the integrated cancer data analysis platform. Neoplasia 25: 18-27, 2022. PMID: 35078134. DOI: 10.1016/j.neo.2022.01.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Chandrashekar DS,
    2. Bashel B,
    3. Balasubramanya SAH,
    4. Creighton CJ,
    5. Ponce-Rodriguez I,
    6. Chakravarthi BVSK and
    7. Varambally S
    : UALCAN: a portal for facilitating tumor subgroup gene expression and survival analyses. Neoplasia 19(8): 649-658, 2017. PMID: 28732212. DOI: 10.1016/j.neo.2017.05.002
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Jézéquel P,
    2. Gouraud W,
    3. Ben Azzouz F,
    4. Guérin-Charbonnel C,
    5. Juin PP,
    6. Lasla H and
    7. Campone M
    : bc-GenExMiner 4.5: new mining module computes breast cancer differential gene expression analyses. Database (Oxford) 2021: baab007, 2021. PMID: 33599248. DOI: 10.1093/database/baab007
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Jézéquel P,
    2. Frénel JS,
    3. Campion L,
    4. Guérin-Charbonnel C,
    5. Gouraud W,
    6. Ricolleau G and
    7. Campone M
    : bc-GenExMiner 3.0: new mining module computes breast cancer gene expression correlation analyses. Database (Oxford) 2013: bas060, 2013. PMID: 23325629. DOI: 10.1093/database/bas060
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Jézéquel P,
    2. Campone M,
    3. Gouraud W,
    4. Guérin-Charbonnel C,
    5. Leux C,
    6. Ricolleau G and
    7. Campion L
    : bc-GenExMiner: an easy-to-use online platform for gene prognostic analyses in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 131(3): 765-775, 2012. PMID: 21452023. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1457-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Bartha Á and
    2. Győrffy B
    : TNMplot.com: A web tool for the comparison of gene expression in normal, tumor and metastatic tissues. Int J Mol Sci 22(5): 2622, 2021. PMID: 33807717. DOI: 10.3390/ijms22052622
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Du J,
    2. Yuan Z,
    3. Ma Z,
    4. Song J,
    5. Xie X and
    6. Chen Y
    : KEGG-PATH: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes-based pathway analysis using a path analysis model. Mol Biosyst 10(9): 2441-2447, 2014. PMID: 24994036. DOI: 10.1039/c4mb00287c
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Chen EY,
    2. Tan CM,
    3. Kou Y,
    4. Duan Q,
    5. Wang Z,
    6. Meirelles GV,
    7. Clark NR and
    8. Ma’ayan A
    : Enrichr: interactive and collaborative HTML5 gene list enrichment analysis tool. BMC Bioinformatics 14: 128, 2013. PMID: 23586463. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-14-128
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Kuleshov MV,
    2. Jones MR,
    3. Rouillard AD,
    4. Fernandez NF,
    5. Duan Q,
    6. Wang Z,
    7. Koplev S,
    8. Jenkins SL,
    9. Jagodnik KM,
    10. Lachmann A,
    11. McDermott MG,
    12. Monteiro CD,
    13. Gundersen GW and
    14. Ma’ayan A
    : Enrichr: a comprehensive gene set enrichment analysis web server 2016 update. Nucleic Acids Res 44(W1): W90-W97, 2016. PMID: 27141961. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkw377
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Mi H,
    2. Muruganujan A and
    3. Thomas PD
    : PANTHER in 2013: modeling the evolution of gene function, and other gene attributes, in the context of phylogenetic trees. Nucleic Acids Res 41(Database issue): D377-D386, 2013. PMID: 23193289. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks1118
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mi H,
    2. Ebert D,
    3. Muruganujan A,
    4. Mills C,
    5. Albou LP,
    6. Mushayamaha T and
    7. Thomas PD
    : PANTHER version 16: a revised family classification, tree-based classification tool, enhancer regions and extensive API. Nucleic Acids Res 49(D1): D394-D403, 2021. PMID: 33290554. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkaa1106
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mi H and
    2. Thomas P
    : PANTHER pathway: an ontology-based pathway database coupled with data analysis tools. Methods Mol Biol 563: 123-140, 2009. PMID: 19597783. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-60761-175-2_7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Benstead-Hume G,
    2. Wooller SK,
    3. Downs JA and
    4. Pearl FMG
    : Defining signatures of arm-wise copy number change and their associated drivers in kidney cancers. Int J Mol Sci 20(22): 5762, 2019. PMID: 31744086. DOI: 10.3390/ijms20225762
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Franceschini A,
    2. Szklarczyk D,
    3. Frankild S,
    4. Kuhn M,
    5. Simonovic M,
    6. Roth A,
    7. Lin J,
    8. Minguez P,
    9. Bork P,
    10. von Mering C and
    11. Jensen LJ
    : STRING v9.1: protein-protein interaction networks, with increased coverage and integration. Nucleic Acids Res 41(Database issue): D808-D815, 2013. PMID: 23203871. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gks1094
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. ↵
    1. Szklarczyk D,
    2. Gable AL,
    3. Lyon D,
    4. Junge A,
    5. Wyder S,
    6. Huerta-Cepas J,
    7. Simonovic M,
    8. Doncheva NT,
    9. Morris JH,
    10. Bork P,
    11. Jensen LJ and
    12. Mering CV
    : STRING v11: protein-protein association networks with increased coverage, supporting functional discovery in genome-wide experimental datasets. Nucleic Acids Res 47(D1): D607-D613, 2019. PMID: 30476243. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gky1131
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. ↵
    1. Theodosiou T,
    2. Papanikolaou N,
    3. Savvaki M,
    4. Bonetto G,
    5. Maxouri S,
    6. Fakoureli E,
    7. Eliopoulos AG,
    8. Tavernarakis N,
    9. Amoutzias GD,
    10. Pavlopoulos GA,
    11. Aivaliotis M,
    12. Nikoletopoulou V,
    13. Tzamarias D,
    14. Karagogeos D and
    15. Iliopoulos I
    : UniProt-Related Documents (UniReD): assisting wet lab biologists in their quest on finding novel counterparts in a protein network. NAR Genom Bioinform 2(1): lqaa005, 2020. PMID: 33575553. DOI: 10.1093/nargab/lqaa005
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    1. Shannon P,
    2. Markiel A,
    3. Ozier O,
    4. Baliga NS,
    5. Wang JT,
    6. Ramage D,
    7. Amin N,
    8. Schwikowski B and
    9. Ideker T
    : Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res 13(11): 2498-2504, 2003. PMID: 14597658. DOI: 10.1101/gr.1239303
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  39. ↵
    1. Gui T,
    2. Yao C,
    3. Jia B and
    4. Shen K
    : Identification and analysis of genes associated with epithelial ovarian cancer by integrated bioinformatics methods. PLoS One 16(6): e0253136, 2021. PMID: 34143800. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253136
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  40. ↵
    1. Warde-Farley D,
    2. Donaldson SL,
    3. Comes O,
    4. Zuberi K,
    5. Badrawi R,
    6. Chao P,
    7. Franz M,
    8. Grouios C,
    9. Kazi F,
    10. Lopes CT,
    11. Maitland A,
    12. Mostafavi S,
    13. Montojo J,
    14. Shao Q,
    15. Wright G,
    16. Bader GD and
    17. Morris Q
    : The GeneMANIA prediction server: biological network integration for gene prioritization and predicting gene function. Nucleic Acids Res 38(Web Server issue): W214-W220, 2010. PMID: 20576703. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkq537
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    1. Nagy Á,
    2. Munkácsy G and
    3. Győrffy B
    : Pancancer survival analysis of cancer hallmark genes. Sci Rep 11(1): 6047, 2021. PMID: 33723286. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-84787-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. ↵
    1. Győrffy B
    : Survival analysis across the entire transcriptome identifies biomarkers with the highest prognostic power in breast cancer. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 19: 4101-4109, 2021. PMID: 34527184. DOI: 10.1016/j.csbj.2021.07.014
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. ↵
    1. Adinew GM,
    2. Taka E,
    3. Mochona B,
    4. Badisa RB,
    5. Mazzio EA,
    6. Elhag R and
    7. Soliman KFA
    : Therapeutic potential of thymoquinone in triple-negative breast cancer prevention and progression through the modulation of the tumor microenvironment. Nutrients 14(1): 79, 2021. PMID: 35010954. DOI: 10.3390/nu14010079
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  44. ↵
    1. Lo HW,
    2. Day CP and
    3. Hung MC
    : Cancer-specific gene therapy. Adv Genet 54: 235-255, 2005. PMID: 16096014. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2660(05)54010-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. ↵
    1. Lu J,
    2. Liu P and
    3. Zhang R
    : A metabolic gene signature to predict breast cancer prognosis. Front Mol Biosci 9: 900433, 2022. PMID: 35847988. DOI: 10.3389/fmolb.2022.900433
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    1. Laubenbacher R,
    2. Hower V,
    3. Jarrah A,
    4. Torti SV,
    5. Shulaev V,
    6. Mendes P,
    7. Torti FM and
    8. Akman S
    : A systems biology view of cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta 1796(2): 129-139, 2009. PMID: 19505535. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbcan.2009.06.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    1. Vinayagam A,
    2. Zirin J,
    3. Roesel C,
    4. Hu Y,
    5. Yilmazel B,
    6. Samsonova AA,
    7. Neumüller RA,
    8. Mohr SE and
    9. Perrimon N
    : Integrating protein-protein interaction networks with phenotypes reveals signs of interactions. Nat Methods 11(1): 94-99, 2014. PMID: 24240319. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2733
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Oti M,
    2. Snel B,
    3. Huynen MA and
    4. Brunner HG
    : Predicting disease genes using protein-protein interactions. J Med Genet 43(8): 691-698, 2006. PMID: 16611749. DOI: 10.1136/jmg.2006.041376
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  48. ↵
    1. Ortutay C and
    2. Vihinen M
    : Identification of candidate disease genes by integrating Gene Ontologies and protein-interaction networks: case study of primary immunodeficiencies. Nucleic Acids Res 37(2): 622-628, 2009. PMID: 19073697. DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkn982
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    1. Huang Z
    : The chemical biology of apoptosis. Exploring protein-protein interactions and the life and death of cells with small molecules. Chem Biol 9(10): 1059-1072, 2002. PMID: 12401491. DOI: 10.1016/s1074-5521(02)00247-8
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  50. ↵
    1. Siddani BR,
    2. Pochineni LP and
    3. Palanisamy M
    : Candidate gene identification for systemic lupus erythematosus using network centrality measures and gene ontology. PLoS One 8(12): e81766, 2013. PMID: 24312583. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081766
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. ↵
    1. Hindumathi V,
    2. Kranthi T,
    3. Rao SB and
    4. Manimaran P
    : The prediction of candidate genes for cervix related cancer through gene ontology and graph theoretical approach. Mol Biosyst 10(6): 1450-1460, 2014. PMID: 24647578. DOI: 10.1039/c4mb00004h
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  52. ↵
    1. Barabási AL and
    2. Oltvai ZN
    : Network biology: understanding the cell’s functional organization. Nat Rev Genet 5(2): 101-113, 2004. PMID: 14735121. DOI: 10.1038/nrg1272
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    1. Tang D,
    2. Kang R,
    3. Berghe TV,
    4. Vandenabeele P and
    5. Kroemer G
    : The molecular machinery of regulated cell death. Cell Res 29(5): 347-364, 2019. PMID: 30948788. DOI: 10.1038/s41422-019-0164-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    1. Fontaine F,
    2. Overman J and
    3. François M
    : Pharmacological manipulation of transcription factor protein-protein interactions: opportunities and obstacles. Cell Regen 4(1): 2, 2015. PMID: 25848531. DOI: 10.1186/s13619-015-0015-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    1. Abreu-Martin MT,
    2. Chari A,
    3. Palladino AA,
    4. Craft NA and
    5. Sawyers CL
    : Mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase kinase 1 activates androgen receptor-dependent transcription and apoptosis in prostate cancer. Mol Cell Biol 19(7): 5143-5154, 1999. PMID: 10373563. DOI: 10.1128/MCB.19.7.5143
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. ↵
    1. Stanbrough M,
    2. Leav I,
    3. Kwan PW,
    4. Bubley GJ and
    5. Balk SP
    : Prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia in mice expressing an androgen receptor transgene in prostate epithelium. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 98(19): 10823-10828, 2001. PMID: 11535819. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.191235898
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  57. ↵
    1. Fu M,
    2. Wang C,
    3. Wang J,
    4. Zhang X,
    5. Sakamaki T,
    6. Yeung YG,
    7. Chang C,
    8. Hopp T,
    9. Fuqua SA,
    10. Jaffray E,
    11. Hay RT,
    12. Palvimo JJ,
    13. Jänne OA and
    14. Pestell RG
    : Androgen receptor acetylation governs trans activation and MEKK1-induced apoptosis without affecting in vitro sumoylation and trans-repression function. Mol Cell Biol 22(10): 3373-3388, 2002. PMID: 11971970. DOI: 10.1128/MCB.22.10.3373-3388.2002
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    1. Pettersson F,
    2. Dalgleish AG,
    3. Bissonnette RP and
    4. Colston KW
    : Retinoids cause apoptosis in pancreatic cancer cells via activation of RAR-gamma and altered expression of Bcl-2/Bax. Br J Cancer 87(5): 555-561, 2002. PMID: 12189556. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6600496
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. ↵
    1. Seewaldt VL,
    2. Johnson BS,
    3. Parker MB,
    4. Collins SJ and
    5. Swisshelm K
    : Expression of retinoic acid receptor beta mediates retinoic acid-induced growth arrest and apoptosis in breast cancer cells. Cell Growth Differ 6(9): 1077-1088, 1995. PMID: 8519684.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  60. ↵
    1. Dhandapani L,
    2. Yue P,
    3. Ramalingam SS,
    4. Khuri FR and
    5. Sun SY
    : Retinoic acid enhances TRAIL-induced apoptosis in cancer cells by upregulating TRAIL receptor 1 expression. Cancer Res 71(15): 5245-5254, 2011. PMID: 21685476. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-4180
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  61. ↵
    1. Bocchia M,
    2. Xu Q,
    3. Wesley U,
    4. Xu Y,
    5. Korontsvit T,
    6. Loganzo F,
    7. Albino AP and
    8. Scheinberg DA
    : Modulation of p53, WAF1/p21 and BCL-2 expression during retinoic acid-induced differentiation of NB4 promyelocytic cells. Leuk Res 21(5): 439-447, 1997. PMID: 9225073. DOI: 10.1016/s0145-2126(96)00085-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. ↵
    1. Sánchez-Beato M,
    2. Sánchez E,
    3. González-Carreró J,
    4. Morente M,
    5. Díez A,
    6. Sánchez-Verde L,
    7. Martín MC,
    8. Cigudosa JC,
    9. Vidal M and
    10. Piris MA
    : Variability in the expression of polycomb proteins in different normal and tumoral tissues. A pilot study using tissue microarrays. Mod Pathol 19(5): 684-694, 2006. PMID: 16528373. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.3800577
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Chen S,
    2. Chen J,
    3. Zhan Q,
    4. Zhu Y,
    5. Chen H,
    6. Deng X,
    7. Hou Z,
    8. Shen B,
    9. Chen Y and
    10. Peng C
    : H2AK119Ub1 and H3K27Me3 in molecular staging for survival prediction of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Oncotarget 5(21): 10421-10433, 2014. PMID: 25431952. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.2126
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. ↵
    1. Li XD,
    2. Chen SL,
    3. Dong P,
    4. Chen JW,
    5. Wang FW,
    6. Guo SJ,
    7. Jiang LJ,
    8. Zhou FJ,
    9. Xie D and
    10. Liu ZW
    : Overexpression of RNF2 is an independent predictor of outcome in patients with urothelial carcinoma of the bladder undergoing radical cystectomy. Sci Rep 6: 20894, 2016. PMID: 26869491. DOI: 10.1038/srep20894
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  64. ↵
    1. Wei M,
    2. Jiao D,
    3. Han D,
    4. Wu J,
    5. Wei F,
    6. Zheng G,
    7. Guo Z,
    8. Xi W,
    9. Yang F,
    10. Xie P,
    11. Zhang L,
    12. Yang AG,
    13. Wang H,
    14. Qin W and
    15. Wen W
    : Knockdown of RNF2 induces cell cycle arrest and apoptosis in prostate cancer cells through the upregulation of TXNIP. Oncotarget 8(3): 5323-5338, 2017. PMID: 28029659. DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.14142
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  65. ↵
    1. Wen W,
    2. Peng C,
    3. Kim MO,
    4. Ho Jeong C,
    5. Zhu F,
    6. Yao K,
    7. Zykova T,
    8. Ma W,
    9. Carper A,
    10. Langfald A,
    11. Bode AM and
    12. Dong Z
    : Knockdown of RNF2 induces apoptosis by regulating MDM2 and p53 stability. Oncogene 33(4): 421-428, 2014. PMID: 23318437. DOI: 10.1038/onc.2012.605
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  66. ↵
    1. Bernardo AR,
    2. Cosgaya JM,
    3. Aranda A and
    4. Jiménez-Lara AM
    : Pro-apoptotic signaling induced by retinoic acid and dsRNA is under the control of interferon regulatory factor-3 in breast cancer cells. Apoptosis 22(7): 920-932, 2017. PMID: 28409399. DOI: 10.1007/s10495-017-1377-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  67. ↵
    1. Gambara G,
    2. Desideri M,
    3. Stoppacciaro A,
    4. Padula F,
    5. De Cesaris P,
    6. Starace D,
    7. Tubaro A,
    8. Del Bufalo D,
    9. Filippini A,
    10. Ziparo E and
    11. Riccioli A
    : TLR3 engagement induces IRF-3-dependent apoptosis in androgen-sensitive prostate cancer cells and inhibits tumour growth in vivo. J Cell Mol Med 19(2): 327-339, 2015. PMID: 25444175. DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.12379
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. ↵
    1. Wu J,
    2. Leng X,
    3. Pan Z,
    4. Xu L and
    5. Zhang H
    : Overexpression of IRF3 predicts poor prognosis in clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Int J Gen Med 14: 5675-5692, 2021. PMID: 34557022. DOI: 10.2147/IJGM.S328225
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  69. ↵
    1. Kim YC,
    2. Kim CY,
    3. Oh JH and
    4. Kim MH
    : NR4A1 regulates tamoxifen resistance by suppressing ERK signaling in ER-positive breast cancer. Cells 10(7): 1633, 2021. PMID: 34209871. DOI: 10.3390/cells10071633
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  70. ↵
    1. Huang X,
    2. Li X and
    3. Guo B
    : KLF6 induces apoptosis in prostate cancer cells through up-regulation of ATF3. J Biol Chem 283(44): 29795-29801, 2008. PMID: 18755691. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M802515200
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Hasim MS,
    2. Nessim C,
    3. Villeneuve PJ,
    4. Vanderhyden BC and
    5. Dimitroulakos J
    : Activating transcription factor 3 as a novel regulator of chemotherapy response in breast cancer. Transl Oncol 11(4): 988-998, 2018. PMID: 29940414. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranon.2018.06.001
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  72. ↵
    1. Koromilas AE and
    2. Sexl V
    : The tumor suppressor function of STAT1 in breast cancer. JAKSTAT 2(2): e23353, 2013. PMID: 24058806. DOI: 10.4161/jkst.23353
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  73. ↵
    1. Thomas M,
    2. Finnegan CE,
    3. Rogers KM,
    4. Purcell JW,
    5. Trimble A,
    6. Johnston PG and
    7. Boland MP
    : STAT1: a modulator of chemotherapy-induced apoptosis. Cancer Res 64(22): 8357-8364, 2004. PMID: 15548705. DOI: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-1864
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Bao J,
    2. Zhu L,
    3. Zhu Q,
    4. Su J,
    5. Liu M and
    6. Huang W
    : SREBP-1 is an independent prognostic marker and promotes invasion and migration in breast cancer. Oncol Lett 12(4): 2409-2416, 2016. PMID: 27703522. DOI: 10.3892/ol.2016.4988
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  75. ↵
    1. Ricoult SJ,
    2. Yecies JL,
    3. Ben-Sahra I and
    4. Manning BD
    : Oncogenic PI3K and K-Ras stimulate de novo lipid synthesis through mTORC1 and SREBP. Oncogene 35(10): 1250-1260, 2016. PMID: 26028026. DOI: 10.1038/onc.2015.179
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. ↵
    1. Guo D,
    2. Prins RM,
    3. Dang J,
    4. Kuga D,
    5. Iwanami A,
    6. Soto H,
    7. Lin KY,
    8. Huang TT,
    9. Akhavan D,
    10. Hock MB,
    11. Zhu S,
    12. Kofman AA,
    13. Bensinger SJ,
    14. Yong WH,
    15. Vinters HV,
    16. Horvath S,
    17. Watson AD,
    18. Kuhn JG,
    19. Robins HI,
    20. Mehta MP,
    21. Wen PY,
    22. DeAngelis LM,
    23. Prados MD,
    24. Mellinghoff IK,
    25. Cloughesy TF and
    26. Mischel PS
    : EGFR signaling through an Akt-SREBP-1-dependent, rapamycin-resistant pathway sensitizes glioblastomas to antilipogenic therapy. Sci Signal 2(101): ra82, 2009. PMID: 20009104. DOI: 10.1126/scisignal.2000446
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. ↵
    1. Huang WC,
    2. Li X,
    3. Liu J,
    4. Lin J and
    5. Chung LW
    : Activation of androgen receptor, lipogenesis, and oxidative stress converged by SREBP-1 is responsible for regulating growth and progression of prostate cancer cells. Mol Cancer Res 10(1): 133-142, 2012. PMID: 22064655. DOI: 10.1158/1541-7786.MCR-11-0206
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  78. ↵
    1. Mendonca P,
    2. Darwish AG,
    3. Tsolova V,
    4. El-Sharkawy I and
    5. Soliman KFA
    : The anticancer and antioxidant effects of muscadine grape extracts on racially different triple-negative breast cancer cells. Anticancer Res 39(8): 4043-4053, 2019. PMID: 31366486. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13560
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  79. ↵
    1. Adinew GM,
    2. Messeha SS,
    3. Taka E,
    4. Badisa RB and
    5. Soliman KFA
    : Anticancer effects of thymoquinone through the antioxidant activity, upregulation of Nrf2, and downregulation of PD-L1 in triple-negative breast cancer cells. Nutrients 14(22): 4787, 2022. PMID: 36432484. DOI: 10.3390/nu14224787
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  80. ↵
    1. Adinew G,
    2. Messeha SS,
    3. Badisa R,
    4. Taka E and
    5. Soliman KFA
    : Thymoquinone anticancer effects through the upregulation of NRF2 and the downregulation of PD-L1 in MDA-MB-231 triple-negative breast cancer cells. FASEB J 36 Suppl 1, 2022. PMID: 35723877. DOI: 10.1096/fasebj.2022.36.S1.R2586
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  81. ↵
    1. Messeha SS,
    2. Zarmouh NO,
    3. Mendonca P,
    4. Alwagdani H,
    5. Cotton C and
    6. Soliman KFA
    : Effects of gossypol on apoptosis related gene expression in racially distinct triple negative breast cancer cells. Oncol Rep 42(2): 467-478, 2019. PMID: 31173249. DOI: 10.3892/or.2019.7179
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  82. ↵
    1. Quispe-Soto ET and
    2. Calaf GM
    : Effect of curcumin and paclitaxel on breast carcinogenesis. Int J Oncol 49(6): 2569-2577, 2016. PMID: 27779649. DOI: 10.3892/ijo.2016.3741
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. ↵
    1. Calaf GM,
    2. Ponce-Cusi R and
    3. Carrión F
    : Curcumin and paclitaxel induce cell death in breast cancer cell lines. Oncol Rep 40(4): 2381-2388, 2018. PMID: 30066930. DOI: 10.3892/or.2018.6603
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. ↵
    1. Liang ZJ,
    2. Wan Y,
    3. Zhu DD,
    4. Wang MX,
    5. Jiang HM,
    6. Huang DL,
    7. Luo LF,
    8. Chen MJ,
    9. Yang WP,
    10. Li HM and
    11. Wei CY
    : Resveratrol mediates the apoptosis of triple negative breast cancer cells by reducing POLD1 expression. Front Oncol 11: 569295, 2021. PMID: 33747905. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.569295
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  85. ↵
    1. Ho CY,
    2. Hu DW,
    3. Chen BR,
    4. Yang CC,
    5. Yao CH,
    6. Ni T,
    7. Ho WC,
    8. Chen YS,
    9. Tu CY,
    10. Chang WC,
    11. Wu YC,
    12. Tang CH,
    13. Huang HC,
    14. Huang WC and
    15. Li TS
    : Snail mucus enhances chemosensitivity of triple-negative breast cancer via activation of the Fas pathway. Anticancer Res 42(2): 845-855, 2022. PMID: 35093882. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15542
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Cancer Genomics - Proteomics: 20 (3)
Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
Vol. 20, Issue 3
May-June 2023
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Cancer Genomics & Proteomics.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Role of Apoptotic Genes and Protein-Protein Interactions in Triple-negative Breast Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Cancer Genomics & Proteomics web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
12 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
The Role of Apoptotic Genes and Protein-Protein Interactions in Triple-negative Breast Cancer
GETINET M. ADINEW, SAMIA MESSEHA, EQUAR TAKA, SHADE A. AHMED, KARAM F.A. SOLIMAN
Cancer Genomics & Proteomics May 2023, 20 (3) 247-272; DOI: 10.21873/cgp.20379

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
The Role of Apoptotic Genes and Protein-Protein Interactions in Triple-negative Breast Cancer
GETINET M. ADINEW, SAMIA MESSEHA, EQUAR TAKA, SHADE A. AHMED, KARAM F.A. SOLIMAN
Cancer Genomics & Proteomics May 2023, 20 (3) 247-272; DOI: 10.21873/cgp.20379
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Knockdown of G Protein-coupled Estrogen Receptor 1 (GPER1) Enhances Tumor-supportive Properties in Cervical Carcinoma Cells
  • A Multiplex Biomarker Assay Improves the Prediction of Survival in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • triple-negative breast cancer
  • apoptosis
  • bioinformatics
Cancer & Genome Proteomics

© 2023 Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

Powered by HighWire