bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Porat, Y.

Publications and source records attributed to Porat, Y..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Efficacy of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) in triple negative breast cancer cells and synergy with PARP inhibitor talazoparib

Breast cancer is the most diagnosed cancer worldwide. Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a subtype with a poor prognosis because of its aggressiveness and high likelihood of relapse, making its treatment particularly challenging. We explored the effect of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) as a novel treatment option for breast cancer, which can be used together with other therapies, such as PARP inhibitors. TTFields use alternating electric fields to inhibit cell growth and induce cellular damage. Our findings indicate that TTFields increase expression of the universal cell cycle CDK inhibitory protein p21(WAF1)/CDKN1A independently of TP53 mutational status. Moreover, when used together with the PARP inhibitor talazoparib, the combination further upregulates p21 protein. Both TTFields alone and together with talazoparib induce cell death as documented by PARP cleavage while reducing markers of cell growth and anti-apoptotic proteins, including p-STAT3, STAT3, and MCL-1. Additionally, TTFields together with talazoparib induce DNA damage, as indicated by increased {gamma}H2AX expression. The combination of talazoparib plus TTFields treatment decrease PDL-1 levels and given its utility in predicting response to PD-1/PD-L1 by mediating immune evasion, this raises the possibility of future combination for immune modulation in cancer therapy. Our preclinical results suggest TTFields alone or together with PARP inhibitors such as talazoparib as a promising therapeutic approach for further development for the treatment of breast cancer.

cancer biology↗

Performance comparison: exome-sequencing as a single test replacing Sanger-sequencing

Systematic performance comparing the results of exome-sequencing as a single test replacing Sanger-sequencing of targeted gene(s) is still lacking. In this study we compared Sanger-sequencing results of 258 genes to those obtained from next generation sequencing (NGS) using two exome-sequencing enrichment kits: Agilent-SureSelectQXT and Illumina-Nextera. Sequencing was performed on leukocytes and buccal-derived DNA from a single individual, and all 258 genes were sequenced a total of 11 times (using different sequencing methods and DNA sources). Sanger-sequencing was completed for all exons, including flanking {+/-}8bp regions. For the 258 genes, NGS mean coverage was >20x for >98% and >91% of the regions targeted by SureSelect and Nextera, respectively. Overall, 449 variants were identified in at least one experiment, and 407/449 (90.6%) were detected by all. Of the 42 discordant variants, 23 were determined as true calls, summing-up to a truth set of 430 variants. Sensitivity of true-variant detection was 99% for Sanger-sequencing and 97%-100% for the NGS experiments. Mean false-positive rates were 3.7E-6 for Sanger-sequencing, 2.5E-6 for SureSelect-NGS and 5.2E-6 for Nextera-NGS. Our findings suggest a high overall concordance between Sanger-sequencing and NGS. Both methods demonstrated false positive and false negative calls and similar performances. Consequently, high clinical suspicion for a specific diagnosis should override negative results of either Sanger-sequencing or NGS.

genetics↗