⌘+K

Pulse Explore Clubs Researchers Journals

Home Clubs Explore

September 16, 2024

Supplementary Fig. 5 from MEK inhibition sensitizes pancreatic cancer to STING agonism by tumor-cell intrinsic amplification of type I interferon signaling

Razmik Ghukasyan Keke Liang Kevin Chau Luyi Li Charlotte Chan Evan R. Abt Thuc Le Joon Y. Park Nanping Wu Alykhan Premji Robert Damoiseaux Tony Luu Amanda Labora Khalid Rashid Jason M. Link Caius G. Radu Timothy R. Donahue

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Abstract

Supplementary Fig. 5 IL6 is not responsible for the synergistic effects of STING agonism and MEK inhibition.

Discussion

No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.

Cite This Study

Ghukasyan et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e586b5b6db643587522ea1 https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.27031732.v1

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Share

Keep reading

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

1Supplementary Fig. 5 from MEK inhibition sensitizes pancreatic cancer to STING agonism by tumor-cell intrinsic amplification of type I interferon signaling2024
2Supplementary Fig. 2 from MEK inhibition sensitizes pancreatic cancer to STING agonism by tumor-cell intrinsic amplification of type I interferon signaling2024
3Supplementary Fig. 2 from MEK inhibition sensitizes pancreatic cancer to STING agonism by tumor-cell intrinsic amplification of type I interferon signaling2024
4Supplementary Fig. 3 from MEK inhibition sensitizes pancreatic cancer to STING agonism by tumor-cell intrinsic amplification of type I interferon signaling2024
5Supplementary Fig. 3 from MEK inhibition sensitizes pancreatic cancer to STING agonism by tumor-cell intrinsic amplification of type I interferon signaling2024