ArticleMolecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.)2026
Proteogenomic Analysis of HDAC4 and HDAC5 in Uveal Melanoma.
Article in Molecular medicine (Cambridge, Mass.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Uveal melanoma (UM) is a rare but aggressive cancer arising from cells of the uveal tract that is highly resistant to therapy once it has metastasized. In drug screening experiments, we identified a high sensitivity of primary UM cell lines to the pan-histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor panobinostat and addressed the question whether two class IIa HDACs, HDAC4 and HDAC5, could serve as potential therapeutic targets in UM. Selective pharmacological inhibition of HDAC4/5, as well as stable knockdown of HDAC4 or HDAC5, did not strongly affect cell viability, differentiation, apoptosis or necrosis, and did not sensitize cells to other HDAC or MEK inhibitors. Proteogenomics analysis revealed 73% concordance and only 7% discordance in the expression of transcripts and proteins. Concordance reached 92% for significant transcripts. Despite the lack of severe global gene and protein expression changes in HDAC4- or HDAC5-knockdown UM cell lines, the expression of individual cancer-related genes and signaling pathways was differently regulated following HDAC4 or HDAC5 knockdown. This was particularly evident in the NF-κB pathway, which showed decreased NF-κB p65 phosphorylation in UM cell lines with monosomy in chromosome 3 (M3) genotype and mutations in BRCA1-associated protein 1 (BAP1). In summary, our results suggest that HDAC4/5 inhibitors alone are insufficient for monotherapy in UM cells, but the identification of HDAC4/5-regulated genes involved in cancer progression provides a rationale for exploring combination strategies that include HDAC4/5 inhibition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.