Cited by 210Advanced Proteomics Techniques and ApplicationsMass Spectrometry Techniques and ApplicationsCancer Genomics and Diagnostics

Clinical potential of mass spectrometry-based proteogenomics

Open access
Zhang, Bing, Whiteaker, Jeffrey R., Hoofnagle, Andrew N., Baird, Geoffrey S., Rodland, Karin D., Paulovich, Amanda G.·2019·Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Cancer genomics research aims to advance personalized oncology by finding and targeting specific genetic alterations associated with cancers. In genome-driven oncology, treatments are selected for individual patients on the basis of the findings of tumour genome sequencing. This personalized approach has prolonged the survival of subsets of patients with cancer. However, many patients do not respond to the predicted therapies based on the genomic profiles of their tumours. Furthermore, studies pairing genomic and proteomic analyses of samples from the same tumours have shown that the proteome contains novel information that cannot be discerned through genomic analysis alone. This observation has led to the concept of proteogenomics, in which both types of data are leveraged for a more complete view of tumour biology that might enable patients to be more successfully matched to effective treatments than they would using genomics alone. In this Perspective, we discuss the added value of proteogenomics over the current genome-driven approach to the clinical characterization of cancers and summarize current efforts to incorporate targeted proteomic measurements based on selected/multiple reaction monitoring (SRM/MRM) mass spectrometry into the clinical laboratory to facilitate clinical proteogenomics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41571-018-0135-7

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Each target protein has been found to contain a structural degron composed of a β-hairpin with a pinnacle glycine motif, most often a C2H2 zinc finger domain, that binds to a composite thalidomide analogue-CRBN surface.

    “Each target protein has been found to contain a structural degron composed of a β-hairpin with a pinnacle glycine motif, most often in the form of a Cys2-His2 (C2H2) zinc finger domain, that binds to a composite thalidomide analogue–CRBN surface17,117,121,167.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 169 · Cited by 210

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [159]Approved guideline CLSI document C62-A. (Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2014). 31339681
  2. [171]Public Workshop – Proteomics in the Clinic, < http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170112091100/http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm392858.htm> (
  3. [172]Public Workshop - Mass Spectrometry in the Clinic: Regulatory Considerations Surrounding Validation of Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry Based Devices, < https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/NewsEvents/WorkshopsConferences/ucm486484.htm> (

Authors
Zhang, B., Whiteaker, J. R., Hoofnagle, A. N., Baird, G. S., Rodland, K. D., & Paulovich, A. G.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Fred Hutch Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Paulovich, Amanda G.
Venue
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
Published
2018-11-28
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
256-268
ISSN
  • 1759-4774 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-4782
OpenAlex
W2902452126
Cited by
210
References
169
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (U01CA214114, U24CA210954, U01CA214116, R50CA211499)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK017047)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Advanced Proteomics Techniques and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Spectroscopy › Mass Spectrometry Techniques and Applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Keywords
proteogenomics, tumor proteome, targeted proteomics, multiple reaction monitoring, precision oncology, tumor heterogeneity, clinical laboratory implementation, cancer genomics
MeSH terms
Proteogenomics, Humans, Mutation, Neoplasms, Prognosis, Mass Spectrometry, Biomarkers, Tumor, Precision Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review