SCIENTIFIC AND THEORETICAL VALIDATION OF DEVELOPMENT OF PERSONALIZED ANTI-CANCER CELL PREPARATION ONTHE BASES OF CLINICAL ONCOPROTEOMICS TECHNOLOGY

Cover Page

Abstract


In the article the authors present analysis of current conventional methodological and technological approaches to contemporary therapy of cancer and certain malignant neoplasms. Based upon the revision of available concepts of clinical oncology, the scientific and theoretical validation of novel approaches to the development of innovative technologies of proteomebased regulatory tumor therapy was attempted. The authors defined their original viewpoint on the development of the preparations for personalized therapy of cancer and proposed a new methodology and alternative approach to the malignant tumors therapy when a cancer stem cell becomes the main target of anticancer therapy. The authors showed that proteome of a cancer stem cell is the most stable information structure of a cell and can be perceived as the main therapeutic target.

I S Bryukhovetskiy

Email: bruhovetsky@mail.ru

A S Bryukhovetskiy

  1. Hill C. The frequency of cancer in France. Rev Prat. 2013; 63(8):1106-10.
  2. Guerin S., Hill C. Cancer epidemiology in France in 2010, comparison with the USA. Bull Cancer. 2010; 97(1):47-54.
  3. Давыдов М.И., Голанов А.В., Канаев С.В., и др. Анализ состояния и концепция модернизации радиационной онкологии и медицинской физики в России. Вопросы онкологии 2013; 59(5):529-38.
  4. Harding C.F., Pompei F., Wilson R. Differences in breast cancer survival by race. JAMA 2013; 310(22): 2456-7.
  5. Waite C.L., Roth C.M. Nanoscale drug delivery systems for enhanced drug penetration into solid tumors: current progress and opportunities. Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2012; 40(1): 21-41.
  6. Kwong L.N., Heffernan T.P., Chin L. A systems biology approach to personalizing therapeutic combinations. Cancer Discov. 2013; 3(12):1339-44.
  7. Новиков А.М., Новиков Д.А. Методология научного исследования. М.: Либроком. 280 с.
  8. Rosenfeld S. Are the Somatic Mutation and Tissue Organization Field Theories of Carcinogenesis Incompatible? Cancer Inform. 2013; 12: 221-29.
  9. Sonnenschein C., Soto A.M. Somatic mutation theory of carcinogenesis: why it should be dropped and replaced. Mol Carcinog. 2000; 29(4):205-11.
  10. Soto A.M., Sonnenschein C. The tissue organization field theory of cancer: a testable replacement for the somatic mutation theory. Bioessays. 2011; 33(5):332-40.
  11. Duesberg P., Mandrioli D., McCormack A. et al. Is carcinogenesis a form of speciation? Cell Cycle. 2011; 10(13):2100-14.
  12. Reya T., Morrison S.J., Clarke M.F. et al. Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells. Nature. 2001; 414(6859):105-11.
  13. Sperka T., Wang J., Rudolph K.L. DNA damage checkpoints in stem cells, ageing and cancer. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2012; 13(9):579-90.
  14. Huang Z., Cheng L., Gurianova O.A. et al. Cancer stem cells in glioblastoma molecular signaling and therapeutic targeting. Protein and cell 2010; 1(7): 638-55.
  15. Арчаков А.И. Биоинформатика, геномика и протеомика - науки о жизни XXI столетия. Вопросы медицинской химии 2000; 1: 4-7.
  16. Ahmed AU, Auffinger B, Lesniak MS. Understanding glioma stem cells: rationale, clinical relevance and therapeutic strategies. Expert Rev Neurother. 2013; 13(5):545-55.
  17. Брюховецкий И.С., Брюховецкий А.С., Кумейко В.В. и др. Стволовые клетки в канцерогенезе мультиформной глиобластомы. Клеточная трансплантология и тканевая инженерия 2013; VIII (2):13-19.
  18. Morrison SJ. Cancer stem cells. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2005; 3(3):171-2.
  19. Li Q.,Bohin N., Wen T. et al. Oncogenic Nras has bimodal effects on stem cells that sustainably increase competitiveness. Nature. 2013; 504 (7478): 143-7.
  20. Meacham CE, Morrison SJ. Tumour heterogeneity and cancer cell plasticity. Nature. 2013; 501(7467):328-37.
  21. Signer R.A., Morrison S.J. Mechanisms that regulate stem cell aging and life span. Cell Stem Cell. 2013; 12(2):152-65.
  22. Magee J.A., Piskounova E., Morrison S.J. Cancer stem cells: impact, heterogeneity, and uncertainty. Cancer Cell. 2012; 21(3):283-96.
  23. Брюховецкий А.С. Клеточные технологии в нейроонкологии: циторегуляторная терапия глиальных опухолей головного мозга. М.: Издательская группа РОНЦ; 2011.
  24. Bivard A., Lin L., Parsonsb M.W. Review of Stroke Thrombolytics. J Stroke. 2013; 15(2):90-98.
  25. Фомин С.В., Беркинблит М.Б. Математические проблемы в биологии. М.: Наука; 1973.
  26. Неймарк Ю.И., Коган Р.Я., Савельев В.П. Динамические модели теории управления. М.: Наука; 1985.
  27. Пальцев М.А., Иванов А.А., Северин С.Е. Межклеточное взаимодействие. М.: Медицина, 2003.
  28. Vickers M, Brown G.C., Cologne G.B. et al. Modelling haemopoietic stem cell division by analysis of mutant red cells. Br J Haematol. 2000; 110(1):54-62.
  29. Белушкина Н.Н., Хомякова Т.Н., Хомяков Ю.Н. Заболевания, связанные с нарушением регуляции программируемой клеточной гибели. Молекулярная медицина 2012; 2: 3-10.
  30. Викторов И.В. Стволовые клетки мозга млекопитающих:биология стволовых клеток in vivo и in vitro. Известия РАН. Серия биологическая 2001; 6: 646-55.
  31. Давыдов М.И. Научная школа: молекулярно биологические признаки злокачественных новообразований и их маркеры. Технологии живых систем 2013; 10(2):003-004.
  32. Teperek M., Miyamoto K. Nuclear reprogramming of sperm and somatic nuclei in eggs and oocytes. Reprod Med Biol. 2013; 12:133-149.
  33. Torres-Padilla M.E. Generating different epigenotypes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013; 27(6): 624-8.
  34. Xiong X.R., Wang L.J., Zi X.D. Epigenetic reprogramming of Yak iSCNT embryos after donor cell pretreatment with oocyte extracts. Anim Reprod Sci. 2012; 133(34):229-36.
  35. Wallenstein E.J., Barminko J., Schloss R.S. et al. Transient gene delivery for functional enrichment of differentiating embryonic stem cells. Biotechnol Bioeng. 2008; 101(5):859-72
  36. Porada C.D., Tran N.D., AlmeidaPorada G. et al. Transduction of longtermengrafting human hematopoietic stem cells by retroviral vectors. Hum Gene Ther. 2002; 13(7):867-79.
  37. Romero Z., Toscano M.G., Unciti J.D. et al. Safer vectors for gene therapy of primary immunodeficiencies. Curr Gene Ther. 2009; 9(4):291-305.
  38. D'Hulst C., Parvanova I., Tomoiaga D., et al. Fast Quantitative RealTime PCRBased Screening for Common Chromosomal Aneuploidies in Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells. Stem Cell Reports. 2013; 1(4):350-9.
  39. Clawson G.A. Cancer. Fusion for moving. Science. 2013; 342(6159):699-700.
  40. Репин В.С., Сухих Г.Т. Медицинская клеточная биология М.: РАМН БЭБиМ, 1998
  41. Yamaguchi S., Kuroda S., Kobayashi H. et al. The effects of neuronal induction on gene expression profile in bone marrow stromal cells (BMSC)a preliminary study using microarray analysis. Brain Res. 2006; 1087(1):15-27.
  42. Trimarchi M.P., Mouangsavanh M., Huang T.H. Cancer epigenetics: a perspective on the role of DNA methylation in acquired endocrine resistance. Chin J Cancer. 2011; 30(11):749-56.
  43. Connolly R., Stearns V. Epigenetics as a therapeutic target in breast cancer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2012; 17(34):191-204.
  44. Bonneville R., Jin V.X. A hidden Markov model to identify combinatorial epigenetic regulation patterns for estrogen receptor α target genes. Bioinformatics 2013; 29(1):22-8.

Views

Abstract - 102

PDF (Russian) - 86

PlumX


Copyright (c) 2014 Bryukhovetskiy I.S., Bryukhovetskiy A.S.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.