Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

About: Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center is a healthcare organization based out in New York, New York, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Cancer & Population. The organization has 30293 authors who have published 65381 publications receiving 4462534 citations. The organization is also known as: MSKCC & New York Cancer Hospital.

An automated method for finding molecular complexes in large protein interaction networks.

Abstract: Recent advances in proteomics technologies such as two-hybrid, phage display and mass spectrometry have enabled us to create a detailed map of biomolecular interaction networks. Initial mapping efforts have already produced a wealth of data. As the size of the interaction set increases, databases and computational methods will be required to store, visualize and analyze the information in order to effectively aid in knowledge discovery. This paper describes a novel graph theoretic clustering algorithm, "Molecular Complex Detection" (MCODE), that detects densely connected regions in large protein-protein interaction networks that may represent molecular complexes. The method is based on vertex weighting by local neighborhood density and outward traversal from a locally dense seed protein to isolate the dense regions according to given parameters. The algorithm has the advantage over other graph clustering methods of having a directed mode that allows fine-tuning of clusters of interest without considering the rest of the network and allows examination of cluster interconnectivity, which is relevant for protein networks. Protein interaction and complex information from the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae was used for evaluation. Dense regions of protein interaction networks can be found, based solely on connectivity data, many of which correspond to known protein complexes. The algorithm is not affected by a known high rate of false positives in data from high-throughput interaction techniques. The program is available from ftp://ftp.mshri.on.ca/pub/BIND/Tools/MCODE .

Cancer immunoediting: from immunosurveillance to tumor escape.

Abstract: The concept that the immune system can recognize and destroy nascent transformed cells was originally embodied in the cancer immunosurveillance hypothesis of Burnet and Thomas. This hypothesis was abandoned shortly afterwards because of the absence of strong experimental evidence supporting the concept. New data, however, clearly show the existence of cancer immunosurveillance and also indicate that it may function as a component of a more general process of cancer immunoediting. This process is responsible for both eliminating tumors and sculpting the immunogenic phenotypes of tumors that eventually form in immunocompetent hosts. In this review, we will summarize the historical and experimental basis of cancer immunoediting and discuss its dual roles in promoting host protection against cancer and facilitating tumor escape from immune destruction.

Comprehensive molecular characterization of gastric adenocarcinoma

Abstract: Gastric cancer was the world’s third leading cause of cancer mortality in 2012, responsible for 723,000 deaths1. The vast majority of gastric cancers are adenocarcinomas, which can be further subdivided into intestinal and diffuse types according to the Lauren classification2. An alternative system, proposed by the World Health Organization, divides gastric cancer into papillary, tubular, mucinous (colloid) and poorly cohesive carcinomas3. These classification systems have little clinical utility, making the development of robust classifiers that can guide patient therapy an urgent priority. The majority of gastric cancers are associated with infectious agents, including the bacterium Helicobacter pylori4 and Epstein–Barr virus (EBV). The distribution of histological subtypes of gastric cancer and the frequencies of H. pylori and EBV associated gastric cancer vary across the globe5. A small minority of gastric cancer cases are associated with germline mutation in E-cadherin (CDH1)6 or mismatch repair genes7 (Lynch syndrome), whereas sporadic mismatch repair-deficient gastric cancers have epigenetic silencing of MLH1 in the context of a CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP)8. Molecular profiling of gastric cancer has been performed using gene expression or DNA sequencing9–12, but has not led to a clear biologic classification scheme. The goals of this study by The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) were to develop a robust molecular classification of gastric cancer and to identify dysregulated pathways and candidate drivers of distinct classes of gastric cancer.

Integrated Genomic Analysis Identifies Clinically Relevant Subtypes of Glioblastoma Characterized by Abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1

Abstract: The Cancer Genome Atlas Network recently cataloged recurrent genomic abnormalities in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). We describe a robust gene expression-based molecular classification of GBM into Proneural, Neural, Classical, and Mesenchymal subtypes and integrate multidimensional genomic data to establish patterns of somatic mutations and DNA copy number. Aberrations and gene expression of EGFR, NF1, and PDGFRA/IDH1 each define the Classical, Mesenchymal, and Proneural subtypes, respectively. Gene signatures of normal brain cell types show a strong relationship between subtypes and different neural lineages. Additionally, response to aggressive therapy differs by subtype, with the greatest benefit in the Classical subtype and no benefit in the Proneural subtype. We provide a framework that unifies transcriptomic and genomic dimensions for GBM molecular stratification with important implications for future studies.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.