Table 4.

Perturbed connections in the everolimus plus AZA module compared to the untreated control. The estimation of the strength connection and P‐value for ‘control’, ‘everolimus plus AZA’, and the ‘difference between everolimus plus AZA vs control’ are reported. We have only included the connections where a statistically significant P value has been observed for the ‘difference between everolimus plus AZA vs control’

Path	Type of process	Control		Everolimus + AZA		Difference
		Estimate	P value	Estimate	P value	Estimate	P value
MDM2→TP53	Inhibition	0.8271	0.0001	−0.9864	0.0022	−1.8135	0.0000
NGFR→ARHGDIB	Binding/association	0.8935	0.0001	2.7208	0.0001	1.8273	0.0125
EPHA2→IRS1	Activation	−0.5077	0.0079	0.3521	0.2699	0.8598	0.0208
PIP5K1C→VCL	Indirect	−0.6464	0.0237	0.3072	0.0001	0.9536	0.0013
VCL→ACTN1	Binding/association	−0.0985	0.8827	2.4853	0.0002	2.5839	0.0062
ITGA1→PTK2	Binding	−0.3282	0.0206	0.1908	0.2790	0.5190	0.0218
NGFR→RAC1	Activation	−0.9042	0.0180	0.5223	0.0155	1.4265	0.0012
RAC1→MAPK10	Indirect	0.0499	0.6359	0.5799	0.0001	0.5300	0.0033
NGFR→CDC42	Activation	0.2736	0.3068	−1.0567	0.0001	−1.3303	0.0004
PAK1→MAP2K1	Phosphorylation	0.4008	0.0018	−0.0669	0.0998	−0.4678	0.0005