Uncovering Potential Therapeutic Targets in Colorectal Cancer by Deciphering Mutational Status and Expression of Druggable Oncogenes

Numerous driver mutations have been identified in colorectal cancer (CRC), but their relevance to the development of targeted therapies remains elusive. The secondary effects of pathogenic driver mutations on downstream signaling pathways offer a potential approach for the identification of therapeutic targets. We aimed to identify differentially expressed genes as potential drug targets linked to driver mutations.Somatic mutations and the gene expression data of 582 CRC patients were utilized, incorporating the mutational status of 39,916 and the expression levels of 20,500 genes. To uncover candidate targets, the expression levels of various genes in wild-type and mutant cases for the most frequent disruptive mutations were compared with a Mann-Whitney test. A survival analysis was performed in 2100 patients with transcriptomic gene expression data. Up-regulated genes associated with worse survival were filtered for potentially actionable targets. The most significant hits were validated in an independent set of 171 CRC patients.Altogether, 426 disruptive mutation-associated upregulated genes were identified. Among these, 95 were linked to worse recurrence-free survival (RFS). Based on the druggability filter, 37 potentially actionable targets were revealed. We selected seven genes and validated their expression in 171 patient specimens. The best independently validated combinations were DUSP4 (p = 2.6 × 10-12) in ACVR2A mutated (7.7%) patients; BMP4 (p = 1.6 × 10-04) in SOX9 mutated (8.1%) patients; TRIB2 (p = 1.35 × 10-14) in ACVR2A mutated patients; VSIG4 (p = 2.6 × 10-05) in ANK3 mutated (7.6%) patients, and DUSP4 (p = 7.1 × 10-04) in AMER1 mutated (8.2%) patients.The results uncovered potentially druggable genes in colorectal cancer. The identified mutations could enable future patient stratification for targeted therapy

MultipleTesting.com: A tool for life science researchers for multiple hypothesis testing correction.

Scientists from nearly all disciplines face the problem of simultaneously evaluating many hypotheses. Conducting multiple comparisons increases the likelihood that a non-negligible proportion of associations will be false positives, clouding real discoveries. Drawing valid conclusions require taking into account the number of performed statistical tests and adjusting the statistical confidence measures. Several strategies exist to overcome the problem of multiple hypothesis testing. We aim to summarize critical statistical concepts and widely used correction approaches while also draw attention to frequently misinterpreted notions of statistical inference. We provide a step-by-step description of each multiple-testing correction method with clear examples and present an easy-to-follow guide for selecting the most suitable correction technique. To facilitate multiple-testing corrections, we developed a fully automated solution not requiring programming skills or the use of a command line. Our registration free online tool is available at www.multipletesting.com and compiles the five most frequently used adjustment tools, including the Bonferroni, the Holm (step-down), the Hochberg (step-up) corrections, allows to calculate False Discovery Rates (FDR) and q-values. The current summary provides a much needed practical synthesis of basic statistical concepts regarding multiple hypothesis testing in a comprehensible language with well-illustrated examples. The web tool will fill the gap for life science researchers by providing a user-friendly substitute for command-line alternatives