Additional file 1 of Identification and clinical impact of potentially actionable somatic oncogenic mutations in solid tumor samples
journal contributionposted on 23.02.2020, 04:40 by Sinead Toomey, Aoife Carr, Mateusz Mezynski, Yasir Elamin, Shereen Rafee, Mattia Cremona, Clare Morgan, Stephen Madden, Khairun Abdul-Jalil, Kathy Gately, Angela Farrelly, Elaine Kay, Susan Kennedy, Kenneth O’Byrne, Liam Grogan, Oscar Breathnach, Patrick Morris, Alexander Eustace, Joanna Fay, Robert Cummins, Anthony O’Grady, Roshni Kalachand, Norma O’Donovan, Fergal Kelleher, Aine O’Reilly, Mark Doherty, John Crown, Bryan Hennessy
Additional file 1: Figure S1. Breakdown of tumour types in A. Colorectal B. Lung and C. Breast tumour cohorts. Table S1. List of mutations analysed using the Agena MassArray technology. Table S2. Somatic mutations tested subdivided by pathway. Table S4. Antibodies used for Reverse Phase Protein Array (RPPA), including the company from which it was purchased, the catalog number, the host species and the dilution at which it was used. Table S6. Somatic mutation status in samples taken from two different regions of the same primary tumour. Samples identified in one sample but not in the other are identified in bold print. Table S7. Somatic mutation status of primary and matched metastatic tumour samples. Samples identified in one sample but not in the other are identified in bold print. Table S8. Frequency and co-occurrence of somatic PIK3CA and KRAS mutations in solid tumour samples.
Science Foundation Ireland
Read the peer-reviewed publication
tumor samplesmetastatic tumour samplesColorectal BTable S 1. ListTable S 2. Somatic mutationsKRAS mutationsPIK 3CAoncogenic mutationsBreast tumour cohortstumour typesTable S 8. FrequencyRPPAtumour samplesPhase Protein ArrayTable S 6. Somatic mutation statuscatalog numberAgena MassArray technologyhost speciesTable S 4. AntibodiesTable S 7. Somatic mutation status