CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 5Computational Drug Discovery MethodsGastric Cancer Management and OutcomesGene expression and cancer classification

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Shortcut From Genome to Drug: The Employment of Bioinformatic Tools to Find New Targets for Gastric Cancer Treatment

Open access
Brito, Daiane M.S., Lima, Odnan G., Mesquita, Felipe P., Silva, Emerson L. da, Moraes, Maria E. A. de, Burbano, Rommel M. R., Montenegro, Raquel C., Souza, Pedro F.N.·2023·Pharmaceutics
DOI 10.20944/preprints202308.1098.v1PMC PMC10535099

Preprint — published as 10.3390/pharmaceutics15092303 · Paper page

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Gastric cancer (GC) is a highly heterogeneous, complex disease and the fifth most common cancer worldwide (about one million cases and 784 000 deaths worldwide in 2018). CG is lately diagnosed and guarantees a poor prognosis for GC (the 5-year survival rate is less than 20%, but in early detection can reach 90%). This study evaluated the transcriptional profile in tumor gastric samples to find genes highly expressed during tumor establishment and use the related proteins as targets to find new anticancer molecules. Data was collected at Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) bank to obtain 3 dataset matrices that analyze gastric tumor tissue versus normal gastric tissue, performed microarray using GPL570 platform, and from different sources. The genes found in silico analysis were confirmed in several lines of GC cells by RT-qPCR. The protein data bank was used to find the correspondent proteins. Then a structural-based virtual screening was done to find molecules, and docking analysis was done using the DockThor server. Our results of transcriptomic analysis, together with RT-qPCR, confirm the high expression of the genes AJUBA, FBXL13, CCDC69, CD80 and NOLC1 in GC lines. Based on that, the correspondent proteins were used in SBVS analysis. Five molecules, one each target, MCULE-2386589557-0-6, MCULE-7343047040-0-1, MCULE-5230409338-0-3, MCULE-9178344200-0-1 and MCULE -5881513100-0-29. All molecules have favorable pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and toxicological properties. Molecular docking analysis revealed that the molecules interact with proteins in critical sites for their activity. Using a virtual screening approach, a molecular docking study was performed for proteins encoded by genes that play important roles in cellular functions for carcinogenesis. Combining a systematic collection of public microarray data with a comparative meta-profiling, RT-qPCR, SBVS, and molecular docking analysis provided a suitable approach to find genes involved in GC and work the correspondent protein to strive for new molecules with anticancer properties.

Overview

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 · 10.20944/preprints202308.1098.v1

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 (A) Batch effect corrected among the studies. (B) Volcano plot of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in gastric tumors. Red dots represent significant expressed genes.
Figure 1 (A) Batch effect corrected among the studies. (B) Volcano plot of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in gastric tumors. Red dots represent significant expressed genes.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Differentially expressed genes were found using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA).
Figure 2 Differentially expressed genes were found using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 TCGA (RNA-seq) expression data for selected genes using Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis (GEPIA). Bars indicate the difference between treatments. * p < 0.01 by one-away (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s test.
Figure 3 TCGA (RNA-seq) expression data for selected genes using Gene Expression Profiling Interactive Analysis (GEPIA). Bars indicate the difference between treatments. * p < 0.01 by one-away (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s test.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Survival analysis for the genes (A) AJUBA, (B) GPNMB, (C) CD80, (D) FBXL13, (E) PDILT, (F) CCDC69, (G) KNL1, (H) IL13RA2 and (I) NOLC1 using Kaplan–Meier plotter (KM plotter).
Figure 4 Survival analysis for the genes (A) AJUBA, (B) GPNMB, (C) CD80, (D) FBXL13, (E) PDILT, (F) CCDC69, (G) KNL1, (H) IL13RA2 and (I) NOLC1 using Kaplan–Meier plotter (KM plotter).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 The relative expression level of AJUBA, CD80, NOLC1 and KNL1 genes in samples of gastric tumor cell lines (A) ACP-02, (B) ACP-03, (C) AGP-01 and (D) AGS is related to normal gastric cells, MNP-01. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 by one-away (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni´s test.
Figure 5 The relative expression level of AJUBA, CD80, NOLC1 and KNL1 genes in samples of gastric tumor cell lines (A) ACP-02, (B) ACP-03, (C) AGP-01 and (D) AGS is related to normal gastric cells, MNP-01. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 by one-away (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni´s test.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 (A) Molecular docking analysis of the AJUBA protein and molecule MCULE-2386589557-0-6. (B) Molecular docking analysis of the CD80 protein and molecule MCULE-9178344200-0-1. (C) Molecular docking analysis of the NOLC1 protein and molecule MCULE-5881513100-0-29. Figure 6 shows the 2D and 3D analysis of the interaction. In the 3D representation, the three compounds are in stick format; proteins are represented in cartoon format, while the residues involved in hydrogen bonding are shown in line format. Black dotted lines represent hydrogen bonds; the bond length is expressed in the Angstrom (Å) measurement unit. The 2D diagram shows the amino acid residues involved in the interactions between AJUBA, CD80 and NOLC1 proteins and the selected MCULE compound for each protein. The present type of interaction is represented by colors, which are identified by the legend in the figure.
Figure 6 (A) Molecular docking analysis of the AJUBA protein and molecule MCULE-2386589557-0-6. (B) Molecular docking analysis of the CD80 protein and molecule MCULE-9178344200-0-1. (C) Molecular docking analysis of the NOLC1 protein and molecule MCULE-5881513100-0-29. Figure 6 shows the 2D and 3D analysis of the interaction. In the 3D representation, the three compounds are in stick format; proteins are represented in cartoon format, while the residues involved in hydrogen bonding are shown in line format. Black dotted lines represent hydrogen bonds; the bond length is expressed in the Angstrom (Å) measurement unit. The 2D diagram shows the amino acid residues involved in the interactions between AJUBA, CD80 and NOLC1 proteins and the selected MCULE compound for each protein. The present type of interaction is represented by colors, which are identified by the legend in the figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Graphic representation of the network of protein interactions for proteins (A) AJUBA, (B) CD80 and (C) NOLC1, identified using STRING v11.5. Each node represents a protein, and each edge represents an interaction. Colored lines between the proteins indicate the various types of interaction evidence.
Figure 7 Graphic representation of the network of protein interactions for proteins (A) AJUBA, (B) CD80 and (C) NOLC1, identified using STRING v11.5. Each node represents a protein, and each edge represents an interaction. Colored lines between the proteins indicate the various types of interaction evidence.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 ① Protein; ② interaction between the targeted protein and the protein in the respective pathway selected on STRING; ③ analysis of complex formed by the molecule and targeted protein with the protein in the respective pathway.
Figure 8 ① Protein; ② interaction between the targeted protein and the protein in the respective pathway selected on STRING; ③ analysis of complex formed by the molecule and targeted protein with the protein in the respective pathway.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Metadata

Authors
Brito, D. M. S., Lima, O. G., Mesquita, F. P., Silva, E. L. D., Moraes, M. E. A. D., Burbano, R. M. R., Montenegro, R. C., & Souza, P. F. N.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal do Ceará (BR)
  • Universidade Federal do Pará (BR)
Corresponding author
Souza, Pedro F.N.
ORCID
Venue
Pharmaceutics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-08-15
Volume
15
Issue
9
Pages
2303-2303
ISSN
1999-4923 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.20944/preprints202308.1098.v1
PMC
PMC10535099
OpenAlex
W4386638888
Cited by
5
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3
FWCI
0.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Pharmaceutics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
  • Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (305459/2019-8, 403493/2021-8, 2019-8, 305003/2022-4, /2022-9, 151388/2022-9)
  • Fundação Cearense de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
  • Universidade Federal do Pará
  • Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação, Universidade Federal do Pará
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
Keywords
gastric cancer, drug target identification, differentially expressed genes, Ajuba, CD80, NOLC1, structure-based virtual screening, molecular docking, anticancer drug discovery, gene expression profiling, prognostic factors

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Shortcut From Genome to Drug: The Employment of Bioinformatic Tools to Find New Targets for Gastric Cancer Treatment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.20944/preprints202308.1098.v1
The paper
Brito, D. M. S., Lima, O. G., Mesquita, F. P., Silva, E. L. D., Moraes, M. E. A. D., Burbano, R. M. R., Montenegro, R. C., & Souza, P. F. N. (2023). A Shortcut From Genome to Drug: The Employment of Bioinformatic Tools to Find New Targets for Gastric Cancer Treatment. Pharmaceutics. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202308.1098.v1