TCPA: a resource for cancer functional proteomics data

By Jun Li, Yiling Lu, Rehan Akbani, Z. Ju, Paul L. Roebuck, Wenbin Liu, Ji-Yeon Yang, B. Broom, R. Verhaak, David W. Kane and 4 more. Nature Methods, 2013

463 citations recorded by the source corpus.

To the Editor: Functional proteomics represents a powerful approach to understand the pathophysiology and therapy of cancer. However, comprehensive cancer proteomic data have been relatively limited. As a part of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Project and other efforts, we have generated protein expression data over a large number of tumor and cell line samples using reverse-phase protein arrays (RPPAs). RPPA is a quantitative, antibody-based technology that can assess multiple protein markers in many samples in a cost-effective, sensitive and highthroughput manner1,2. This technology has been extensively validated for both cell line and patient samples3–5, and its applications range from building reproducible prognostic models6 to generating experimentally verified mechanistic insights7. Our RPPA profiling platform includes extensively validated antibodies to nearly 200 proteins and phosphoproteins (Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Table 1). We are in the process of extending it to 500 independent proteins, covering all major signaling pathways, including PI3K, MAPK, mTOR, TGF-b, WNT, cell cycle, apoptosis, DNA damage, Hippo and Notch pathways. The current data release covers 4,379 tumor samples and consists of three parts (Supplementary Table 2). These are (i) TCGA tumor tissue sample sets: 3,467 samples from 11 cancer types, to be extended to 25 cancer types; (ii) independent tumor tissue sample sets: one endometrial tumor set (244 samples)7 and two ovarian tumor sets (99 and 130 samples, respectively)6, with other independent sets to be added soon; and (iii) tumor cell lines: 439 samples in four cell line sets, including both baseline and drug-treated cell lines. To our knowledge, this represents the largest publicly available collection of cancer functional proteomics data with parallel DNA and RNA data. To facilitate broad access to these RPPA data sets, we developed a user-friendly data portal, The Cancer Proteome Atlas (TCPA; http://bioinformatics.mdanderson.org/main/ TCPA:Overview). TCPA provides six modules: Summary, My Protein, Download, Visualization, Analysis and Cell Line (Fig. 1, i). The Summary module provides an overview of the RPPA data with detailed descriptions of each set (Fig. 1, ii). The Download module allows users to obtain any RPPA data set for analysis through a tree-view interface (Fig. 1, iii). The My Protein module provides detailed information about each RPPA protein: protein name, corresponding gene symbol, antibody status and source for the antibody. Users can examine the expression pattern of a protein of interest across different tumor types (for example, HER2 expression shown in Fig. 1, iv). The Visualization module provides two ways to examine global protein expression patterns in a specific RPPA data set . One is through a “next-generation clustered heat map” (Fig. 1, v), which allows users to zoom, navigate and scrutinize clustering patterns of samples or proteins and link those patterns to relevant biological information sources. The other is through a network view (Fig. 1, vi), which overlays the correlation between any two interacting partners in the protein interaction network (curated in the Human Protein Reference Database8). The Analysis module provides three analysis methods. (i) For correlation analysis, given a user-specified data set, correlations between any pair of proteins are presented in a table (Fig. 1, vii). Users can search the results by protein name, rank correlations or visualize the scatter plot of a correlation of interest (for example, there is a strong correlation between PKC-a and its phosphorylated form PKC-a_pS657 in endometrial cancer, as shown in Fig. 1, vii). (ii) For differential analysis, differentially expressed protein markers between two tumor types or subtypes can be identified. Given user-defined comparison groups, the Krzywinski and Cairo reply: We are in full agreement with the core of Katz’s argument that “distortion,” “embellishment,” “concealment” and “unrepresentative displays” have no place in principled communication of scientific information1. There is no controversy here—Katz extrapolates our storytelling metaphor beyond the intended scope of our column and argues against a position we did not take. The Points of View series offers effective strategies for visual presentation of complex data. The scope of the Storytelling column2 was limited to the construction of multipanel figures, which summarize as much as they support detailed exposition of the text. The column did not address how this text should be composed or the broad subject of motivation and design of scientific experiments. We described an approach to structure the flow of concepts and data across panels in a figure as a way to achieve a narrative, not confabulation. The design of visual communication requires a distinct approach because we organize and interpret images very differently than words (Gestalt principles of perception3). Whereas text is a natural place for nuance and alternative interpretations, multiple lines of argument in a figure can easily interfere with our perception of all its parts. Our suggestion to “leave out detail that does not advance the plot” speaks to controlling the amount of information to avoid an incomprehensible image and deferring it to the text, where it can be more suitably framed. To interpret it as “inconvenient truths are [to be] swept away” is a misrepresentation. Readers often look to the abstract and then the figures to provide them with an initial impression and overview of the findings. These are not the only elements that are reported, merely the first elements to be read. At each step, from abstract to figure to text, the level of detail is expanded to accommodate the preparedness of the reader to assimilate new information. It is often impossible to “do justice to experimental complexities and their myriad of interpretations” with a figure. We support Katz’s position that authors should include all the details necessary to appreciate, understand and reproduce the science through the use of visual and written communication that is clear, concise and thoughtful.

Subfields: Molecular Biology, Spectroscopy

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/16069e306e2ce6fbf4e59405834ebbaaf9f033fc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Molecular Biology

  1. Jinku Bao
  2. Katarzyna Tomczak
  3. Patrycja Czerwińska
  4. Nan Zhou
  5. M. Wiznerowicz
  6. R. DePinho

Citations in the corpus