Skip to main content
. 2015 Jun 19;36(Suppl 1):S38–S60. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgv030

Table 2.

Cross-validation of target pathways

Priority targets Sustained proliferative signalling
Deregulated metabolism Evasion of anti-growth signalling Angiogenesis Genetic instability Resistance to cell death Replicative immortality Tissue invasion and metastasis Tumor promoting inflammation Tumor microenvironment
H-Ras ± (139,140) + (141,142) + (143) + (144) ± (145,146) − (147) + (148) + (149,150) + (151)
Jun/Fos/AP1 ± (152,153) − (154–157) 0 + (158,159) ± (160,161) ± (162,163) + (164) + (165,166) + (151)
Cyclin D, IL8, CXCL ± (167–170) 0 + (171) + (172) 0 ± (173,174) + (175) + (176,177) 0
PPAR + (178) + (179) − (180) 0 − (181,182) + (183–185) + (186) + (187) 0
AhR + (188) + (189) + (190) + (191) ± (192–194) + (195,196) ± (197,198) + (199) + (200)
EGF receptor + (201) 0 + (202) + (203) ± (204,205) + (206) + (207) + (208) 0
Steroid hormone receptors + (209) 0 0 + (210) 0 ± (211–213) + (214) + (215,216) + (217)

Target pathways sustained proliferative signalling were cross-validated for effects in other cancer hallmark pathways. Targets that were found to have opposing actions in a particular hallmark (i.e. anti-carcinogenic) were denoted using ‘−’, whereas targets that were found to have promoting actions in a particular hallmark (i.e. carcinogenic) were denoted using ‘+’. In instances where reports on relevant actions in other hallmarks were mixed (i.e. reports showing both pro-carcinogenic potential and anti-carcinogenic potential), the symbol ‘±’ was used. Finally, in instances where no literature support was found to document the relevance of a target in a particular aspect of cancer’s biology were denoted ‘0’.