Percorrer por autor "ferreira, Bibiana"
A mostrar 1 - 2 de 2
Resultados por página
Opções de ordenação
- Chromenone derivatives as CRM1 inhibitors for targeting glioblastomaPublication . Princiotto, Salvatore; Jiménez, Lucía; Domínguez, Lucía; Sequeira, João G. N.; Mourato Paulo, Cristiana Isabel; Orea-Soufi, Alba; da Silva Santos, Bruno Filipe; Dallavalle, Sabrina; Machuqueiro, Miguel; Ferreira, Bibiana; Link, WolfgangGlioblastoma (GBM) is one of the most aggressive and deadly cancers. Due to the complexity and redundancy within signaling networks in GBM, targeted inhibitors of specific pathways have shown only limited success. The nuclear export receptor chromosome region maintenance 1 (CRM1) has recently emerged as a promising therapeutic target, as its inhibition can simultaneously disrupt multiple key oncogenic drivers. Herein, whether chromenone derivatives, known for detecting thiol-containing molecules, can function as CRM1 inhibitors is explored. Several chromenonebased derivatives are synthesized and it is demonstrated that they inhibit CRM1-driven nuclear export in a structure- and dose-dependent manner. A preliminary structure–activity relationship is established, providing a rationale for selective CRM1 binding based on molecular docking studies. Additionally, it is showed that the active chromenone derivatives effectively inhibit the nuclear export of endogenous nuclear export signal-containing substrates in GBM cells. Several of these compounds exhibit selective cytotoxicity againstGBM cell lines, highlighting their potential as targeted therapies for GBM.
- Comparison of the ABC and ACMG systems for variant classificationPublication . Houge, Gunnar; Bratland, Eirik; Aukrust, Ingvild; Tveten, Kristian; Žukauskaitė, Gabrielė; Sansovic, Ivona; Brea-Fernández, Alejandro J.; Mayer, Karin; Paakkola, Teija; McKenna, Caoimhe; Wright, William; Markovic, Milica Keckarevic; Lildballe, Dorte L.; Konecny, Michal; Smol, Thomas; Alhopuro, Pia; Gouttenoire, Estelle Arnaud; Obeid, Katharina; Todorova, Albena; Jankovic, Milena; Lubieniecka, Joanna M.; Stojiljkovic, Maja; Buisine, Marie-Pierre; Haukanes, Bjørn Ivar; Lorans, Marie; Roomere, Hanno; Petit, François M.; Haanpää, Maria K.; Beneteau, Claire; Pérez, Belén; Plaseska-Karanfilska, Dijana; Rath, Matthias; Fuhrmann, Nico; Ferreira, Bibiana; Stephanou, Coralea; Sjursen, Wenche; Maver, Aleš; Rouzier, Cécile; Chirita-Emandi, Adela; Gonçalves, João; Kuek, Wei Cheng David; Broly, Martin; Haer-Wigman, Lonneke; Thong, Meow-Keong; Tae, Sok-Kun; Hyblova, Michaela; Dunnen, Johan T. den; Laner, AndreasThe ABC and ACMG variant classification systems were compared by asking mainly European clinical laboratories to classify variants in 10 challenging cases using both systems, and to state if the variant in question would be reported as a relevant result or not as a measure of clinical utility. In contrast to the ABC system, the ACMG system was not made to guide variant reporting but to determine the likelihood of pathogenicity. Nevertheless, this comparison is justified since the ACMG class determines variant reporting in many laboratories. Forty-three laboratories participated in the survey. In seven cases, the classification system used did not influence the reporting likelihood when variants labeled as “maybe report” after ACMG-based classification were included. In three cases of population frequent but disease-associated variants, there was a difference in favor of reporting after ABC classification. A possible reason is that ABC step C (standard variant comments) allows a variant to be reported in one clinical setting but not another, e.g., based on Bayesian-based likelihood calculation of clinical relevance. Finally, the selection of ACMG criteria was compared between 36 laboratories. When excluding criteria used by less than four laboratories (<10%), the average concordance rate was 46%. Taken together, ABC-based classification is more clear-cut than ACMG-based classification since molecular and clinical information is handled separately, and variant reporting can be adapted to the clinical question and phenotype. Furthermore, variants do not get a clinically inappropriate label, like pathogenic when not pathogenic in a clinical context, or variant of unknown significance when the significance is known.