Novak, Mandac Smoljanović, and Grgurević: Proteomics in myelodysplastic syndromes: towards novel prognostic and diagnostic biomarkers

Myelodysplastic neoplasms

Myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) are a group of malignant clonal hematological disorders characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis and dysplasia affecting cell lineages of the bone marrow. It typically presents with nonspecific symptoms related to cytopenias, including fatigue from anemia, infections from neutropenia, and bleeding or bruising from thrombocytopenia. The annual incidence of MDS is approximately 4.9 per 100,000. Although it is rare before age 40, it rises sharply after 70, with a median age at diagnosis of 65 years and a slightly higher incidence in men (1). Congenital, environmental and life-style factors contribute to the risk of developing MDS. Hereditary bone marrow failure syndromes are well-established predisposing conditions, while environmental risks include benzene exposure from cigarette smoke and occupational exposure to solvents, paints, and pesticides. Epidemiological studies also link higher body mass index (BMI) to increased risk of MDS, with relative risks of 1.15 for overweight, 2.18 for obese adults, and a particularly elevated risk for people with BMI > 35 kg/m2 (2). The increased risk might stem form obesity-related inflammation, immune dysregulation, and adipocyte-driven alterations of the bone marrow microenvironment (3, 4). Myelodysplastic neoplasms may also arise as a secondary condition from pre-existing hematologic disorders or following cytotoxic chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy. Therapy-related MDS is linked to alkylating agents, topoisomerase II inhibitors and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). It accounts for up to 15% of cases, and carries a markedly increased risk of myeloid neoplasms (5, 6). Elevated MDS incidence has also been observed after solid organ transplantation, likely due to prolonged immunosuppression, with agents such as azathioprine conferring a particularly high risk through impaired DNA repair and chromosomal instability (7-10).

Pathogenesis of myelodysplastic neoplasms

Despite extensive study, the exact “cell of origin” in MDS remains unclear. Early MDS is marked by hypercellular bone marrow, coupled with peripheral cytopenias that are driven by increased apoptosis and impaired differentiation of affected cells. This apoptosis may reflect immune responses against MDS antigens, but it also arises from mitochondrial dysfunction and the activation of pro-apoptotic pathways, exacerbated by a raise in pro-inflammatory cytokines. The paradox of high apoptosis in early MDS versus reduced apoptosis reported during clonal expansion in advanced disease, suggests a dynamic shift in cellular programs. These insights position apoptosis as both a hallmark of MDS-related bone marrow failure and a potential biomarker and therapeutic target (11-13).

Recent advances in molecular profiling have reshaped our understanding of MDS pathogenesis, revealing a complex interplay between multiple factors. Genetic and cytogenetic abnormalities influence disease phenotype, progression, and treatment response, thus defining different MDS subtypes and carrying major prognostic value. Cytogenetic lesions occur in roughly half of de novo cases, while recurrent mutations that affect RNA splicing, epigenetic regulation, transcription and signaling, are detected in over 90% of cases (14).

Myelodysplastic neoplasms incidence rises sharply after age 70, which centers aging in its pathogenesis. Age-related defects in DNA repair, epigenetic regulation, metabolism, and chronic inflammation create a permissive environment for somatic mutations, particularly in DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1, that are considered hallmarks of age-related clonal hematopoiesis (15, 16). These processes drive clonal selection and hematopoietic imbalance, providing insight into early MDS evolution and guiding the search for predictive genetic biomarkers (11, 12, 17). Somatic mutations in genes regulating RNA splicing (SF3B1, SRSF2, U2AF1), DNA methylation (TET2, DNMT3A), and histone modification (ASXL1, EZH2) are common early events in MDS, disrupting gene expression and differentiation to drive clonal hematopoiesis (18). Additional mutations in signaling pathways (NRAS, JAK2), transcription factors (RUNX1), or tumor suppressors (TP53) promote clonal dominance, genomic instability, and leukemic transformation (19, 20). Through the stepwise accumulation of such genetic and epigenetic alterations that drive clonal expansion, impaired differentiation, and increased blast proliferation, MDS can progress to acute myeloid leukemia (AML) (21).

Myelodysplastic neoplasms was classified in 2022 by the World Health Organisation (WHO) 5th Edition, which replaced “syndromes” with “neoplasms” and defined entities based on morphology and specific genetic markers, including MDS with low blasts and isolated chromosome deletion del(5q), MDS with low blasts and SF3B1 mutation, and MDS with biallelic TP53 inactivation (22). Similarly, the International Consensus Classification (ICC) recognizes the mentioned genetically defined entities, but classifies patients with 10-19% blasts as „MDS/AML“, whereas WHO retains them as MDS with increased blasts-2 (23). Both systems rely on morphologic criteria (≥ 10% dysplasia in one or more lineages, blast counts in marrow and blood, and ring sideroblasts) alongside genetic abnormalities to define subtypes (24).

Several pre-MDS indolent myeloid disorders have also been recognized: idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance (ICUS), idiopathic dysplasia of undetermined significance (IDUS), clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP), and clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance (CCUS) (25-27). Idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance involves persistent cytopenia without MDS-related dysplasia or cytogenetic/molecular abnormalities (17, 28, 29). Idiopathic dysplasia of undetermined significance features morphological dysplasia with minimal or no cytopenia and lacks clonal mutations or cytogenetic changes. Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential is defined by age-related mutations in genes involved in myeloid malignancies, without cytopenias or neoplastic features. Clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance combines unexplained cytopenia with clonal mutations, often with minimal dysplasia but without MDS-defining abnormalities. These entities provide a valuable model for developing and validating diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers (11, 26-29).

Diagnostic and therapeutic approaches

Given the marked biological heterogeneity of MDS, accurate classification is essential for diagnosis and therapeutic decision-making. Recent WHO and ICC updates integrate morphology and genetic aberrations since cytogenetic or molecular alterations are detectable in approximately 90% of cases. Myelodysplastic neoplasms diagnosis thus requires evidence of dysplastic changes in ≥ 10% of cells in at least one hematopoietic lineage, fewer than 20% myeloblasts in peripheral blood or bone marrow, and presence of clonal genetic abnormalities. However, caution is needed, as many of these mutations also occur in healthy individuals or in related conditions (21). Some patients exhibit cytopenias without meeting full MDS criteria, often with stable blood counts for years (26). Myelodysplastic neoplasms is further characterized by its inherent risk of progression to AML. The risk was initially stratified by the International Prognostic Scoring System-Revised (IPSS-R) based on marrow blast percentage, cytogenetic risk group, hemoglobin concentration, platelet count, and absolute neutrophil count (30). This framework was expanded in 2022 by the International Prognostic Scoring System-Molecular (IPSS-M), by incorporating the mutational status of relevant genes (i.e. TP53, SF3B1, TET2, ASXL1, RUNX1) (31). This refines risk stratification and enables treatment adapted to patient age, comorbidities, and genetic profile, thus improving quality of life and delaying the progression to AML.

Therapeutic options for MDS currently range from conventional therapies, such as hypomethylating agents and lenalidomide, to intensive myeloablative regimens. Although these approaches may induce clinical responses, they fail to fully eradicate MDS stem cells (32-34). Current research in MDS increasingly focuses on common genetic abberations, like targeting TP53 using its reactivator Eprenetapopt, or IDH1/2 inhibitors and luspatercept for patients with SF3B1 mutations (21, 35). Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the only potentially curative therapy for MDS (36, 37). However, the disease is sustained by diverse and adaptable stem cell populations, which complicates their eradication, and relapse remains the leading cause of treatment failure. Maintenance and pre-emptive therapies following HSCT are, therefore, also areas of active investigation (38, 39). Ultimately, the development of new approaches like digital diagnostics and peripheral blood omics may change future diagnostic practices. Effective management of MDS will likely depend on rational combinations of classical supportive and non-targeted treatments with individualized, mutation-directed therapies (40, 41).

Protein biomarkers of myelodysplastic neoplasms

As classification systems increasingly integrate molecular features, proteomic profiling offers an opportunity to refine these categories by capturing the functional consequences of genetic lesions and microenvironmental alterations of MDS. This highlights the need to evaluate protein-level biomarkers alongside established genomic markers. Proteomic studies in MDS have utilized several sample types, capturing distinct layers of disease biology. Peripheral blood offers a minimally invasive source suitable for longitudinal monitoring and reflects systemic inflammatory and metabolic alterations. Bone marrow provides a more direct view of the dysplastic niche and microenvironmental remodeling. Finally, stem and progenitor cell-enriched fractions allow the identification of protein signatures specifically associated with clonal hematopoiesis and early leukemogenic events.

Despite significant advances, robust and clinically applicable biomarkers capable of predicting disease course and stratifying high-risk patients remain a major unmet need (42-46). The purpose of this review is to integrate and evaluate candidate protein biomarkers with potential prognostic relevance and therapeutic value in MDS. These proteins can be categorized according to their predominant biological functions into: kinases and signal transduction molecules, proteins implicated in graft rejection, cytoskeletal and extracellular matrix (ECM) regulators, and metabolic enzymes. Such classification facilitates a clearer understanding of their roles in disease pathogenesis and also highlights potential therapeutic avenues. These molecules were selected via a comprehensive literature review and are proposed for future validation of their diagnostic and prognostic utility in MDS.

1. Kinases/Signal transduction molecules

Protein kinases have a critical role in cell signaling and regulation. Through phosphorylation, they modify the function, activity, localization, or interactions of their target proteins. Dysregulated kinase activity is proposed as a defining feature of MDS progression and is closely associated with poor prognosis in patients. Individual kinase alterations are well characterized in other cancers (e.g., KIT in systemic mastocytosis, neurotrophic tropomyosin kinase receptors fusions in solid tumors, but their collective dysregulation in MDS suggests a unique pathogenic network (47, 48). While individual biomarkers may not be relevant, their collective expression, synthesized into a diagnostic panel, has proven useful for stratifying patients into subgroups based on disease severity. The expression profiles and activity of several kinases has recently been characterized and annotated to MDS patient subgroups using the Kinase Stratification Score (KISS) (42). These proteins converge on three significant pathways: immune evasion, stem cell dysregulation and therapeutic resistance. Immune evasion is a hallmark of cancer development. It allows malignant cells to avoid detection by the host immune system, a process that is often orchestrated through dysregulated signaling pathways. Aberrant calcium/calmodulin and Wnt signaling pathway were suggested to be of particular importance to MDS. A notable example is a calcium/calmodulin-dependent kinase (CAMK1D) that modulates the differentiation and apoptosis of haematopoetic cells (49). Yao et al. associated high expression of CAMK1D in MDS patients with poor overall survival rate, likely due its suppression of caspase-mediated apoptosis, which permits leukemic clone survival. Another member of this signaling pathway is protein kinase C zeta (PRKCZ) whose elevated expression was linked to poor prognosis (42). The cluster of Wnt-related kinases were also implicated in the pathology of this disease. Namely, elevated expression of the transmembrane receptor tyrosine kinase KIT appears to further disrupt stem cell signaling and to increase blast counts, thus potentially intersecting functionally with CAMK1D activity in the progression of MDS (50). Elevated expression levels of several other Wnt-related kinases have been proposed as potential prognostic biomarkers within the KISS model, although their mechanisms of contribution to MDS pathogenesis are largely unknown. In particular, overexpression of microtubule-associated serine/threonine kinase 4 (MAST4), p21-activated kinase 6 (PAK6), and protein tyrosine kinase 7 (PTK7) have been linked to adverse outcomes. Moreover, while mutations in neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase 1 (NTRK1) are commonly associated with solid tumours, they have also been correlated with poor overall survival (42). NTRK1 mutations in MDS often result in constitutive kinase activation, analogous to gain-of-function mutations in solid tumours, implicating a shared “hyperactive signaling” phenotype despite divergent mutational spectra (51). Functionally, patients classified as KISS-high exhibit concurrent overexpression of all seven kinases. This implies that the kinases are not in direct biochemical interaction and that they act in additive manner in pathogenesis of MDS.

Insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA-binding protein 3 (IGF2BP3) exerts broadly detrimental effects on patient prognosis. This oncofetal protein, typically low in healthy adults, is frequently re-expressed in cancers. In MDS and AML patients, elevated plasma concentrations of IGF2BP3 are associated with chemotherapy resistance and reduced survival. These effects are thought to result from the stabilization of survival-promoting mRNAs, including modulators of the PI3K-AKT and MAPK pathways, thereby inhibiting apoptosis (52).

Retinol-Binding Protein 4 (RBP4) is increasingly recognized not only as a transporter of retinol but also as a signaling molecule that modulates metabolic and inflammatory pathways. Through its endocrine-like effects, RBP4 can influence cellular communication and immune responses, placing it among proteins with signaling functions. The RBP4 is a blood transporter of retinol (vitamin A), with a role in multiple metabolic and inflammatory pathways (53). Elevated concentrations of RBP4 expression have been observed in certain subtypes of MDS, such as refractory anemia with excess blasts-1 (54). However, RBP4 concentrations remain normal in MDS subtype, anemia with ringed sideroblasts, suggesting that RBP4 may serve as a potential biomarker specific to certain MDS subgroups (55).

Kinases are among the most important drug targets in the human proteome, with a long history of being targeted for an expanding range conditions (56). Understanding the kinase activation patterns driving MDS is a crucial insight into the mechanisms underlying disease progression. Targeting these dysregulated pathways holds the potential to modulate ineffective hematopoiesis or reduce malignant cell survival. With the exception of PTK7, for which inhibitory strategies have shown only limited success in phase 1 clinical trials, inhibitors of other potential immune evasion mediators have yet to be evaluated in the context of MDS (Table 1) (51, 57-61). Table 1 summarizes the most frequently reported proteomic biomarkers in MDS. To aid interpretation, the column ‘Validation potential’ reflects an assessment based on several criteria: (i) reproducibility across independent cohorts; (ii) availability of orthogonal confirmation (e.g., ELISA, flow cytometry, targeted MS); (iii) demonstrated association with clinically relevant endpoints such as survival, progression, or treatment response; and (iv) feasibility of measurement in routine clinical samples such as peripheral blood, bone marrow plasma, or CD34+ fractions. These criteria collectively indicate the likelihood that each biomarker could progress toward clinical validation.

Table 1

Candidate protein biomarkers in myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) with potential prognostic and therapeutic relevance.

Molecule Pathway/Category Reported effect in MDS Prognostic implication Validation potential Reference
CAMK1D Calcium/calmodulin signaling kinase Suppresses caspase-mediated apoptosis, modulates hematopoietic differentiation High expression linked to poor overall survival Strong candidate biomarker; warrants functional and clinical validation (42, 49)
PRKCZ Protein kinase C family Dysregulated expression contributes to immune evasion Associated with poor prognosis Promising, requires further mechanistic studies (42)
KIT Receptor tyrosine kinase (Wnt-related) Alters stem cell signaling, increases blast counts Overexpression linked to disease progression Targetable kinase, potential therapeutic biomarker (50)
MAST4 Serine/threonine kinase (Wnt-related) Mechanism unclear, implicated via KISS model Overexpression associated with adverse outcome Candidate for exploratory validation (42)
PAK6 Serine/threonine kinase (Wnt-related) Mechanism unclear, implicated via KISS model Overexpression associated with adverse outcome Candidate for exploratory validation (42, 61)
PTK7 Pseudokinase, Wnt signaling modulator Implicated in MDS via KISS model; limited therapeutic inhibition tested High expression linked to poor prognosis Limited clinical trial data; further validation needed (42, 57)
NTRK1 Neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase Activating mutations cause constitutive signaling Mutations correlated with reduced survival Potential shared oncogenic driver; promising biomarker (42, 51)
IGF2BP3 RNA-binding oncofetal protein Stabilizes pro-survival mRNAs (PI3K-AKT, MAPK pathways); promotes chemoresistance Elevated concentrations linked to reduced survival and therapy resistance Strong candidate for clinical validation (52)
RBP4 Retinol-binding protein, signaling modulator Alters metabolic and inflammatory signaling; subtype-specific expression Elevated in RAEB-1 but not in RARS; potential subgroup biomarker Promising subtype-specific biomarker for stratification (53-55)
For each candidate biomarker, it is crucial to distinguish whether clinical implementation would require detection of somatic mutations (e.g., NTRK1) or quantification of protein overexpression (e.g., KIT, PTK7), as the analytical platforms and clinical significance differ accordingly.

2. Proteins related to graft rejection

Graft rejection is a transplant failure in which the recipient’s immune system attacks the transplanted bone marrow or blood-forming cells, preventing engraftment and recovery. Disruption of the kinase signaling pathways can trigger dysregulated innate and adaptive immune responses. This imbalance promotes inflammation and immune cell infiltration, processes that can ultimately lead to graft rejection. This is of high importance to MDS since HSCT is the only curative option currently available for patients. Therefore, identifying proteins that predict allograft rejection at an early stage of treatment is of great importance for monitoring graft function and assessing relapse risk. Several of these candidate proteins converge on common signalling pathways like NF-κB, and Src kinase pathways implicated in inflammatory signaling and immune cell activation (62, 63).

A likely candidate is C-terminal Src kinase (CSK), which regulates immune homeostasis by preventing the overactivation of inflammatory pathways. Elevated CSK was associated with MDS by post-transplant immune activity and is potentially predictive of disease relapse (46). CSK is a known regulator that can control the activity of tyrosine-protein kinase Fgr (FGR), a non-receptor tyrosine kinase primarily expressed in hematopoietic cells (64). In physiologic conditions, FGR expression is largely restricted to macrophage subsets; however, during inflammation, it is produced by most hematopoietic cell types. As FGR regulates inflammatory cytokine secretion and immune cell activation, the combined activity of these two modulators could exacerbate the chronic immune dysregulation and ineffective hematopoiesis characteristic of MDS (46, 65). Similarly, dysregulation of Lck/yes-related novel (LYN) kinase in hematopoietic cells has been reported in chronic myelomonocytic leukemia and AML (66).

Graft rejection is largely driven by cytotoxic T cells that recognize donor antigens, trigger inflammation, and destroy graft tissue. This process is amplified by class I-restricted T cell-associated molecule (CRTAM), which is expressed on activated cytotoxic immune cells and is overexpressed in patients with MDS. Its overexpression could contribute to enhanced graft rejection and disease relapse. Glycoprotein Ib alpha chain (GP1BA) is a component of the platelet receptor complex von Willebrand factor that is essential for hemostasis and vascular immunity (46). Although GP1BA is not mutated in MDS, the characteristic dysfunction of megakaryocytes and abnormal platelet activation that present in MDS patients, may reflect its altered levels.

Finally, ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2N (UBE2N) mediates the attachment of ubiquitin to target proteins, a key mechanism regulating NF-κB-dependent DNA repair (67). Unlike the previously discussed immune modulators, UBE2N primarily influences malignant cell survival. It is overexpressed in leukemic stem and progenitor cells in both MDS and AML, where it supports the maintenance and persistence of these malignant cell populations (68). The roles of other immune modulators, such as oxidized LDL receptor 1 (OLR1), S100 calcium-binding protein A12 (S100A12), and signal transducer and activator of transcription 1 (STAT1), have also been implicated in post-transplant complications, though their contributions require further investigation (46).

Similar to therapeutic approaches linked to immune evasion, efforts to target graft rejection-related mediators or their pathways in MDS remain in the earliest stages of development. For instance, modulating STAT1 activity is being tested in various disease settings such as myelofibrosis, myeloproliferative neoplasms, thrombocytopenia, and hematologic malignancies, including MDS (69-73). Such inhibitors may potentially help restore normal hematopoiesis by dampening the overactive JAK-STAT signaling observed in MDS, offering an altrenative therapeutic alley. Similarly, inhibition of UBE2N has been shown to suppress the function and viability of MDS/AML cell lines as well as patient derived samples (74, 75).

Beyond these, multiple other conceptually promising mediators represent druggable targets, however most evidence is limited to early-stage studies or to different disease contexts and their clinical relevance in MDS is yet to be established (Figure 1) (76-78).

Figure 1

Schematic representation of post-transplant mechanisms in MDS, illustrating the distinction between relapse biology and immunologic transplant complications. Chronic inflammation and immune infiltration activate dysregulated kinase pathways (NF-κB, Src, JAK–STAT), which support leukemic stem cell persistence and ultimately lead to post-transplant relapse. In contrast, graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) arises from alloimmune activation of cytotoxic T and NK cells, exemplified by CRTAM-mediated effector responses. Graft rejection reflects failure of donor engraftment, primarily driven by host innate immune activation. These pathways represent biologically and clinically distinct processes, and only the kinase-driven axis contributes to malignant relapse rather than GVHD or graft rejection.

bm-36-2-020504-f1

3. Bone marrow microenvironment and cytoskeletal/ECM regulators

The bone marrow cytoskeleton orchestrates the regulation of cell morphology, migratory capacity, intracellular signaling, and mitotic division. Several proteins related to impaired cytoskeletal dysfunction have thus emerged as promising therapeutic targets in acute leukemias (79). Centrosomal Protein 55 (CEP55) is a cell division modulator whose overexpression is considered to promote tumorigenesis (80). Talin-1 (TLN1) is a cytoskeletal protein that plays a role in linking integrins to the actin cytoskeleton, facilitating cell adhesion and migration (81). The concentrations of both proteins were elevated in bone marrow plasma of patients with MDS, particularly those with ring sideroblasts. Indeed, increased CEP55 expression has been associated with abnormal karyotypes which strengthens it as a potential for chromosomal instability (43). Kindlin-3 has strengthened the understanding of problematic leukocyte adhesion in AML. Its epigenetic suppression (hypermethylation) leads to dysfunctional blood cell adhesion and cell viability in both MDS and AML, potentially exacerbating the bone marrow failure observed in MDS (82). Furthermore, kindlin-3 deficiency may contribute to the defective hematopoietic microenvironment of MDS by disrupting integrin signaling. Its mutations may overlap with inflammatory mechanisms that involved in the MDS pathogenesis (83). Vinculin is another cytoskeletal modulator involved in cell adhesion and mechano-transduction whose expression levels are altered in MDS. Reduced expression of vinculin in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from MDS patients may contribute to impaired cell adhesion, thereby disrupting hematopoiesis - a hallmark of the disease (84). Additionally, its reduced expression in plateletes derived from MDS patients may impair integrin αIIbβ3 activation, resulting in defective platelet aggregation and contributing to the bleeding complications commonly observed in MDS patients (85). Finally, increased levels of posttranslational modifications of vinculin have also been suggested as promising cadidate diagnostic biomarkers (86).

The cytoskeleton is in constant crosstalk with the ECM, coordinating adhesion, signaling, and microenvironmental remodeling (87). Low concentrations of thrombospondin-1 (THBS1), an ECM glycoprotein that plays a role in angiogenesis, apoptosis and tumor progression have been observed in patients with MDS. Those exhibiting reduced THBS1 expression tend to have shorter overall survival, suggesting its potential utility as a prognostic biomarker (88). Pathological angiogenesis has also been associated with leucine-rich α-2-glycoprotein 1 (LRG1), a glycoprotein primarily secreted by hepatocytes and neutrophils. Elevated plasma concentrations of LRG1 in MDS patients are believed to influence the bone marrow microenvironment through its expression and secretion from neutrophil granules. LRG1 promotes aberrant angiogenesis by modulating TGF-β signaling, resulting in the formation of immature and dysfunctional blood vessels (44, 89). Another important mediator of ECM remodelling is secreted protein acidic and rich in cysteine (SPARC, osteonectin). Implicated in several hematologic malignancies, particularly MDS, it is of growing interest due to its dual functions as both a tumor suppressor and tumor promotor. SPARC is located on chromosome 5q31.3-q32, a region frequently deleted in MDS, particularly in the 5q-syndrome, a distinct subtype of MDS defined by the deletion of chromosome 5q which has a more favourable prognosis. Similarly, the transcription factor PR domain containing 16 (PRDM16) has recently been implicated in hematologic malignancies. The PRDM16 gene is located on chromosome 1p36, a region frequently involved in chromosomal translocations in patients with MDS and AML. Translocations of this gene are linked to its overexpression, which is associated with poor prognosis in affected patients (90). Secreted by the bone marrow stroma microenvironment, serum amyloid A1 (SAA1) is known to regulate the ECM through matrix metalloprotineases (91). Emerging evidence also implicates SAA1 in the pathogenesis of both MDS and AML (92). It has been shown to promote the proliferation of malignant clones in these disorders, regardless of cytogenetic or mutational profiles. Targeting SAA1 using IL-6 inhibitors or small peptides could mitigate clonal expansion in MDS (93, 94). Aditionally, as elevated concentrations of SAA1 were correlated with increased disease severity in MDS and its progression to AML, it could have potential as a biomarker for disease monitoring (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Schematic representation of the bone marrow microenvironment showing cytoskeletal regulators (CEP55, Talin-1, Kindlin-3, Vinculin) and ECM proteins (THBS1, LRG1, SPARC, SAA1, Clusterin), together with PRDM16, illustrating disrupted adhesion, signaling, and remodeling processes driving MDS/AML progression. ECM - extracellular matrix. HSC - hematopoietic stem cell. MSC - mesenchymal stem cell.

bm-36-2-020504-f2

One of the most prominent chaperons of the ECM is clusterin. Overexpression of secreted clusterin (CLU) has been linked to resistance to chemotherapy and radiotherapy in various types of cancer (95). In patients with MDS, CLU proteoforms in plasma-derived exosomes were compared to “free” plasma CLU concentrations. The observed altered distribution of CLU proteoforms suggests their potential utility as a biomarker for MDS progression (45).

4. Metabolic enzymes

Increased activity of lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA) in MDS patients, as indicated by their elevated plasma LDH, may serve as a potential prognostic factor (96). LDHA is a glycolytic enzyme that catalyzes the conversion of pyruvate to lactate, thereby sustaining glycolytic flux and supporting energy production under hypoxic conditions. The involvement of this enzyme in tumorigenesis is well-established, reflecting its importance in the metabolic reprogramming of malignant cells (97). A wide array of LDHA inhibitors, ranging from synthetic molecules and natural compounds to antisense oligonucleotides, RNA interference, and N-terminal mimetic peptides, are currently under investigation in various cancers (98-100). However, their role in MDS remains uncertain.

In conclusion, a deeper understanding of the cellular composition of the normal, dysplastic, and leukemic marrow niche, as well as the complex network of intercellular interactions, is expected to provide novel insights into therapeutic approaches in the coming years.

Genomics is an integral part of routine diagnostic and prognostic assessment in MDS. However, despite advances in genomic profiling, MDS remains a therapeutic challenge due to its striking molecular heterogeneity, with patients exhibiting diverse mutational landscapes, epigenetic dysregulation, and metabolic adaptations. Future management will rely increasingly on strategies that integrate disease pathophysiology, biology, and their molecular underpinnings. Proteomics enables the identification of disease-specific protein expression patterns and post-translational modifications, and can uncover novel biomarkers of diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic response. Integration of clinical proteomic data into existing diagnostic frameworks may thus lead to improved molecular classification, optimized therapeutic decision-making, and the development of protein-targeted therapies in MDS (46).

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely acknowledge Tomislav Balen, MD for his assistance in the initial collection of literature data, carried out during his education within the course “Basic Concepts of Scientific Work Preparation” at the Department of Proteomics.

Notes

[1] Conflicts of interest Potential conflict of interest

None declared.

Data availability statement

No data was generated during this study, so data sharing statement is not applicable to this article.

References

1 

Garcia-Manero G. Myelodysplastic syndromes: 2023 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification, and management. Am J Hematol. 2023;98:1307–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.26984

2 

Ma X, Lim U, Park Y, Mayne ST, Wang R, Hartge P, et al. Obesity, lifestyle factors, and risk of myelodysplastic syndromes in a large US cohort. Am J Epidemiol. 2009;169:1492–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwp074

3 

Gregor MF, Hotamisligil GS. Inflammatory mechanisms in obesity. Annu Rev Immunol. 2011;29:415–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-immunol-031210-101322

4 

Veldhuis-Vlug AG, Rosen CJ. Clinical implications of bone marrow adiposity. J Intern Med. 2018;283:121–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/joim.12718

5 

Konde AS, Srivastava P, Puppala M, Wong S, Pingali SR, Iyer SP. Risk of myelodysplasia in patients post solid organ transplant: A review of recent trends from a tertiary transplantation center. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:7064. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.34.15_suppl.7064

6 

Ertz-Archambault N, Kosiorek H, Taylor GE, Kelemen K, Dueck A, Castro J, et al. Association of Therapy for Autoimmune Disease With Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Acute Myeloid Leukemia. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:936–43. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6435

7 

Chua CC, Fleming S, Wei AH. Clinicopathological aspects of therapy-related acute myeloid leukemia and myelodysplastic syndrome. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2019;32:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beha.2019.02.007

8 

Ahmad OF, Keane MG, McCartney S, Khwaja A, Bloom SL. Azathioprine-associated myelodysplastic syndrome in two patients with ulcerative colitis. Frontline Gastroenterol. 2013;4:205–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2012-100276

9 

Visconte V, Tiu RV, Rogers HJ. Pathogenesis of myelodysplastic syndromes: an overview of molecular and non-molecular aspects of the disease. Blood Res. 2014;49:216. https://doi.org/10.5045/br.2014.49.4.216

10 

Sperling AS, Gibson CJ, Ebert BL. The genetics of myelodysplastic syndrome: From clonal haematopoiesis to secondary leukaemia. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17:5–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc.2016.112

11 

Heuser M, Yun H, Thol F. Epigenetics in myelodysplastic syndromes. Semin Cancer Biol. 2018;51:170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2017.07.009

12 

Itzykson R, Kosmider O, Fenaux P. Somatic mutations and epigenetic abnormalities in myelodysplastic syndromes. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2013;26:355–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beha.2014.01.001

13 

Oster HS, van de Loosdrecht AA, Mittelman M. Diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes: the classic and the novel. Haematologica. 2025;110:300–11. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2023.284937

14 

Cazzola M, Della Porta MG, Malcovati L. The genetic basis of myelodysplasia and its clinical relevance. Blood. 2013;122:4021–34. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2013-09-381665

15 

Sato N, Goyama S, Kitamura T. ASXL1 mutation-related clonal hematopoiesis and age-related diseases: clinical evidence and molecular insights. Int J Hematol. 2025;122:327–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12185-025-04038-5

16 

Dunn WG, McLoughlin MA, Vassiliou GS. Clonal hematopoiesis and hematological malignancy. J Clin Invest. 2024;134:e180065. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI180065

17 

Chung SS, Park CY. Aging, hematopoiesis, and the myelodysplastic syndromes. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2017;2017:73–8. https://doi.org/10.1182/asheducation-2017.1.73

18 

Chang YH. Myelodysplastic syndromes and overlap syndromes. Blood Res. 2021;56:S51–64. https://doi.org/10.5045/br.2021.2021010

19 

Delio M, Bryke C, Mendez L, Joseph L, Jassim S. JAK2 Mutations Are Rare and Diverse in Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Case Series and Review of the Literature. Hematol Rep. 2023;15:73–87. https://doi.org/10.3390/hematolrep15010008

20 

Maslah N, Kaci N, Roux B, Alexe G, Marie R, Pasquer H, et al. JAK2 inhibition mediates clonal selection of RAS pathway mutations in myeloproliferative neoplasms. Nat Commun. 2025;16:6270. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-60884-1

21 

Platzbecker U, Kubasch AS, Homer-Bouthiette C, Prebet T. Current challenges and unmet medical needs in myelodysplastic syndromes. Leukemia. 2021;35:2182–98. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41375-021-01265-7

22 

Li W. The 5th Edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Hematolymphoid Tumors. Leukemia. 2022;1-21. https://doi.org/10.36255/exon-publications-leukemia-who-5th-edition-hematolymphoid-tumors

23 

Arber DA, Orazi A, Hasserjian RP, Borowitz MJ, Calvo KR, Kvasnicka HM, et al. International Consensus Classification of Myeloid Neoplasms and Acute Leukemias: integrating morphologic, clinical, and genomic data. Blood. 2022;140:1200–28. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2022015850

24 

Hasserjian RP, Germing U, Malcovati L. Diagnosis and classification of myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 2023;142:2247–57. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2023020078

25 

Steensma DP, Bejar R, Jaiswal S, Lindsley RC, Sekeres MA, Hasserjian RP, et al. Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential and its distinction from myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood. 2015;126:9–16. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2015-03-631747

26 

Valent P. ICUS, IDUS, CHIP and CCUS: Diagnostic Criteria, Separation from MDS and Clinical Implications. Pathobiology. 2019;86:30–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000489042

27 

Tanaka TN, Bejar R. MDS overlap disorders and diagnostic boundaries. Blood. 2019;133:1086–95. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2018-10-844670

28 

Malcovati L, Cazzola M. The shadowlands of MDS: idiopathic cytopenias of undetermined significance (ICUS) and clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP). Hematology. 2015;2015:299–307. https://doi.org/10.1182/asheducation-2015.1.299

29 

Montalban-Bravo G, Garcia-Manero G. Myelodysplastic syndromes: 2018 update on diagnosis, risk-stratification and management. Am J Hematol. 2018;93:129–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajh.24930

30 

Greenberg PL, Tuechler H, Schanz J, Sanz G, Garcia-Manero G, Solé F, et al. Revised International Prognostic Scoring System for Myelodysplastic Syndromes. Blood. 2012;120:2454–65. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2012-03-420489

31 

Bernard E, Tuechler H, Greenberg PL, Hasserjian RP, Ossa JEA, Nannya Y, et al. Molecular International Prognostic Scoring System for Myelodysplastic Syndromes. NEJM Evidence. 2022;1:a2200008. https://doi.org/10.1056/EVIDoa2200008

32 

Nakamura R, Saber W, Martens MJ, Ramirez A, Scott B, Oran B, et al. Biologic Assignment Trial of Reduced-Intensity Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Based on Donor Availability in Patients 50-75 Years of Age With Advanced Myelodysplastic Syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3328–39. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.20.03380

33 

Scott BL, Pasquini MC, Logan BR, Wu J, Devine SM, Porter DL, et al. Myeloablative Versus Reduced-Intensity Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndromes. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:1154–61. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.70.7091

34 

Oran B, Ahn KW, Fretham C, Beitinjaneh A, Bashey A, Pawarode A, et al. Fludarabine and Melphalan Compared with Reduced Doses of Busulfan and Fludarabine Improve Transplantation Outcomes in Older Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndromes. Transplant Cell Ther. 2021;27:921.e1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtct.2021.08.007

35 

Oster HS, van de Loosdrecht AA, Mittelman M. Diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes: the classic and the novel. Haematologica. 2025;110:300–11. https://doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2023.284937

36 

Zhan D, Park CY. Stem Cells in the Myelodysplastic Syndromes. Front Aging. 2021;2:719010. https://doi.org/10.3389/fragi.2021.719010

37 

Bewersdorf JP, Zeidan AM. Risk-Adapted, Individualized Treatment Strategies of Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) and Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia (CMML). Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:1610. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13071610

38 

Sallman DA, Asch AS, Al Malki MM, Lee DJ, Donnellan WB, Marcucci G, et al. The First-in-Class Anti-CD47 Antibody Magrolimab (5F9) in Combination with Azacitidine Is Effective in MDS and AML Patients: Ongoing Phase 1b Results. Blood. 2019;134:569. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2019-126271

39 

Chung SS, Eng WS, Hu W, Khalaj M, Garrett-Bakelman FE, Tavakkoli M, et al. CD99 is a therapeutic target on disease stem cells in myeloid malignancies. Sci Transl Med. 2017;9:eaaj2025. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaj2025

40 

Cluzeau T, Loschi M, Fenaux P, Komrokji R, Sallman DA. Personalized Medicine for TP53 Mutated Myelodysplastic Syndromes and Acute Myeloid Leukemia. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22:10105. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms221810105

41 

Berg T, Salter B, Radford M, Chen HTT, Leber B. Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation: The Relevance of Conditioning Regime Intensity for Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS). Curr Oncol. 2025;32:319. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol32060319

42 

Yao CY, Lin CC, Wang YH, Kao CJ, Tsai CH, Hou HA, et al. Kinome expression profiling improves risk stratification and therapeutic targeting in myelodysplastic syndromes. Blood Adv. 2024;8:2442–54. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2023011512

43 

Moura AA, Bezerra MJB, Martins AMA, Borges DP, Oliveira RTG, Oliveira RM, et al. Global Proteomics Analysis of Bone Marrow: Establishing Talin-1 and Centrosomal Protein of 55 kDa as Potential Molecular Signatures for Myelodysplastic Syndromes. Front Oncol. 2022;12:833068. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.833068

44 

Majek P, Sovova Z, Pecankova K, Cermak J, Gasova Z, Pecherkova P, et al. Mass spectrometry, data re-analysis, and homology modelling predict posttranslational modifications of leucine-rich alpha-2-glycoprotein as a marker of myelodysplastic syndrome. Cancer Biomark. 2022;34:485–92. https://doi.org/10.3233/CBM-210033

45 

Pecankova K, Pecherkova P, Gasova Z, Sovova Z, Riedel T, Jäger E, et al. Proteome changes of plasma-derived extracellular vesicles in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0262484. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0262484

46 

Guru Murthy GS, Zhang T, Bolon YT, Spellman S, Dong J, Auer P, et al. Proteomics to predict relapse in patients with myelodysplastic neoplasms undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biomark Res. 2024;12:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40364-023-00550-0

47 

Piris-Villaespesa M, Alvarez-Twose I. Systemic Mastocytosis: Following the Tyrosine Kinase Inhibition Roadmap. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:443. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.00443

48 

Manea CA, Badiu DC, Ploscaru IC, Zgura A, Bacinschi X, Smarandache CG, et al. A review of NTRK fusions in cancer. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2022;79:103893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amsu.2022.103893

49 

Racioppi L, Lento W, Huang W, Arvai S, Doan PL, Harris JR, et al. Calcium/calmodulin-dependent kinase kinase 2 regulates hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell regeneration. Cell Death Dis. 2017;8:e3076. https://doi.org/10.1038/cddis.2017.474

50 

Zhu HH, Ji K, Alderson N, He Z, Li S, Liu W, et al. Kit-Shp2-Kit signaling acts to maintain a functional hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell pool. Blood. 2011;117:5350. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-01-333476

51 

Cocco E, Scaltriti M, Drilon A. NTRK fusion-positive cancers and TRK inhibitor therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15:731–47. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-018-0113-0

52 

Lin TL, Jaiswal AK, Ritter AJ, Reppas J, Tran TM, Neeb ZT, et al. Targeting IGF2BP3 enhances antileukemic effects of menin-MLL inhibition in MLL-AF4 leukemia. Blood Adv. 2024;8:261–75. https://doi.org/10.1182/bloodadvances.2023011132

53 

Steinhoff JS, Lass A, Schupp M. Biological Functions of RBP4 and Its Relevance for Human Diseases. Front Physiol. 2021;12:659977. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.659977

54 

Kim N, Priefer R. Retinol binding protein 4 antagonists and protein synthesis inhibitors: Potential for therapeutic development. Eur J Med Chem. 2021;226:113856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2021.113856

55 

Májek P, Reicheltová Z, Suttnar J, Čermák J, Dyr JE. Plasma protein alterations in the refractory anemia with excess blasts subtype 1 subgroup of myelodysplastic syndrome. Proteome Sci. 2012;10:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-5956-10-31

56 

Silnitsky S, Rubin SJS, Zerihun M, Qvit N. An Update on Protein Kinases as Therapeutic Targets—Part I: Protein Kinase C Activation and Its Role in Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:17600. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms242417600

57 

Maitland ML, Sachdev JC, Sharma MR, Moreno V, Boni V, Kummar S, et al. First-in-Human Study of PF-06647020 (Cofetuzumab Pelidotin), an Antibody-Drug Conjugate Targeting Protein Tyrosine Kinase 7, in Advanced Solid Tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27:4511–20. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-3757

58 

Fromont C, Atzori A, Kaur D, Hashmi L, Greco G, Cabanillas A, et al. Discovery of Highly Selective Inhibitors of Calmodulin-Dependent Kinases That Restore Insulin Sensitivity in the Diet-Induced Obesity in Vivo Mouse Model. J Med Chem. 2020;63:6784–801. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b01803

59 

Bogard AS, Tavalin SJ. Protein Kinase C (PKC)ζ pseudosubstrate inhibitor peptide promiscuously binds PKC family isoforms and disrupts conventional PKC targeting and translocation. Mol Pharmacol. 2015;88:728–35. https://doi.org/10.1124/mol.115.099457

60 

Zhong Z, Yao R, Duan Y, Ouyang C, Du Z, Li L, et al. Advances and Challenges in Targeted Therapy and Its Combination Strategies for Leukemia. Biomedicines. 2025 July 1;13:1652. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines13071652

61 

Gao J, Ha BH, Lou HJ, Morse EM, Zhang R, Calderwood DA, et al. Substrate and Inhibitor Specificity of the Type II p21-Activated Kinase, PAK6. PLoS One. 2013;8:e77818. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077818

62 

Tak PP, Firestein GS. NF-kappaB: a key role in inflammatory diseases. J Clin Invest. 2001;107:7–11. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI11830

63 

Lowell CA. Src-family kinases: rheostats of immune cell signaling. Mol Immunol. 2004;41:631–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molimm.2004.04.010

64 

Ruzzene M, James P, Brunati AM, Donella-Deana A, Pinna LA. Regulation of c-Fgr protein kinase by c-Src kinase (CSK) and by polycationic effectors. J Biol Chem. 1994;269:15885–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(17)40763-0

65 

Du S, Alvarado JJ, Wales TE, Moroco JA, Engen JR, Smithgall TE. ATP-site inhibitors induce unique conformations of the acute myeloid leukemia-associated Src-family kinase, Fgr. Structure. 2022;30:1508–17.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2022.08.008

66 

Ochman AR, Lipinski CA, Handler JA, Reaume AG, Saporito MS. The Lyn kinase activator MLR-1023 is a novel insulin receptor potentiator that elicits a rapid-onset and durable improvement in glucose homeostasis in animal models of type 2 diabetes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2012;342:23–32. https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.112.192187

67 

Al-Hakim A, Escribano-Diaz C, Landry MC, Donnell L, Panier S, Szilard RK, et al. The ubiquitous role of ubiquitin in the DNA damage response. DNA Repair (Amst). 2010;9:1229–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2010.09.011

68 

Wang T, Pine AR, Kotini AG, Yuan H, Zamparo L, Starczynowski DT, et al. Sequential CRISPR gene editing in human iPSCs charts the clonal evolution of myeloid leukemia and identifies early disease targets. Cell Stem Cell. 2021;28:1074–89.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2021.01.011

69 

O’Shea JJ, Schwartz DM, Villarino AV, Gadina M, McInnes IB, Laurence A. The JAK-STAT pathway: impact on human disease and therapeutic intervention. Annu Rev Med. 2015;66:311–28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-051113-024537

70 

Verstovsek S, Mesa RA, Gotlib J, Levy RS, Gupta V, DiPersio JF, et al. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:799–807. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1110557

71 

Pardanani A, Harrison C, Cortes JE, Cervantes F, Mesa RA, Milligan D, et al. Safety and efficacy of fedratinib in patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:643–51. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.1590

72 

Mascarenhas J, Hoffman R, Talpaz M, Gerds AT, Stein B, Gupta V, et al. Pacritinib vs best available therapy, including ruxolitinib, in patients with myelofibrosis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2018;4:652–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5818

73 

Zeidan AM, Cook RJ, Bordoni R, Berenson JR, Edenfield WJ, Mohan S, et al. A phase 1/2 study of the oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitors INCB052793 and itacitinib alone or in combination with standard therapies for advanced hematologic malignancies. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2022;22:523–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clml.2022.01.012

74 

Barreyro L, Sampson AM, Ishikawa C, Hueneman KM, Choi K, Pujato MA, et al. Blocking UBE2N abrogates oncogenic immune signaling in acute myeloid leukemia. Sci Transl Med. 2022;14:eabb7695. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.abb7695

75 

Stubbins RJ, Platzbecker U, Karsan A. Inflammation and myeloid malignancy: quenching the flame. Blood. 2022;140:1067–74. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.2021015162

76 

Wang X, Luo Y, Zhou Q, Ma J. The roles of S100A8/A9 and S100A12 in autoimmune diseases: mechanisms, biomarkers, and therapeutic potential. Autoimmun Rev. 2025;24:103920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autrev.2025.103920

77 

Tian K, Ogura S, Little PJ, Xu SW, Sawamura T. Targeting LOX-1 in atherosclerosis and vasculopathy: current knowledge and future perspectives. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2019;1443:34–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13984

78 

Redin E, Garmendia I, Lozano T, Serrano D, Senent Y, Redrado M, et al. SRC family kinase (SFK) inhibitor dasatinib improves the antitumor activity of anti-PD-1 in NSCLC models by inhibiting Treg cell conversion and proliferation. J Immunother Cancer. 2021;9:e001496. https://doi.org/10.1136/jitc-2020-001496

79 

Machado-Neto JA, Vicari HP, Lipreri da Silva JC, Lima K. New molecular targets in acute leukemias: cytoskeletal regulatory proteins. Biochem Soc Trans. 2025;53:1249–58. https://doi.org/10.1042/BST20253017

80 

Tandon D, Banerjee M. Centrosomal protein 55: a new paradigm in tumorigenesis. Eur J Cell Biol. 2020;99:151086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcb.2020.151086

81 

Wang Y, Huang H, Weng H, Jia C, Liao B, Long Y, et al. Talin mechanotransduction in disease. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2024;166:106490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2023.106490

82 

McDowall A, Svensson L, Stanley P, Patzak I, Chakravarty P, Howarth K, et al. Two mutations in the KINDLIN3 gene of a new leukocyte adhesion deficiency III patient reveal distinct effects on leukocyte function in vitro. Blood. 2010;115:4834–42. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2009-08-238709

83 

Xu Z, Jobe SM, Ma YQ, Shavit JA. A novel leukocyte adhesion deficiency type III mutation manifests functional importance of the compact FERM domain in kindlin-3. J Thromb Haemost. 2024;22:558–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtha.2023.10.013

84 

Pecankova K, Majek P, Cermak J, Dyr JE. Peripheral blood mononuclear cell proteome changes in patients with myelodysplastic syndrome. BioMed Res Int. 2015;2015:872983. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/872983

85 

Czibere AG, Fröbel J, Hartwig S, Cadeddu RP, Wilk M, Bruns I, et al. Platelets derived from patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) show defective platelet aggregation and integrin αIIbβ3 receptor (GPIIb/IIIa) signaling caused by a reduced expression of proteins required for inside-out signaling. Blood. 2009;114:598. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.V114.22.598.598

86 

Nardo G, Pozzi S, Mantovani S, Garbelli S, Marinou K, Basso M, et al. Nitroproteomics of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients and a rat model of ALS. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2009;11:1559–67. https://doi.org/10.1089/ars.2009.2548

87 

Geiger B, Bershadsky A, Pankov R, Yamada KM. Transmembrane extracellular matrix-cytoskeleton crosstalk. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2001;2:793–805. https://doi.org/10.1038/35099066

88 

Zhu L, Li Q, Wang X, Liao J, Zhang W, Gao L, et al. THBS1 is a novel serum prognostic factor of acute myeloid leukemia. Front Oncol. 2020;9:1567. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.01567

89 

Pecankova K, Cermak J, Majek P. Proteomic case studies of MDS in progression: heterogeneity and more heterogeneity. Turk J Haematol. 2022;39:272–4. https://doi.org/10.4274/tjh.galenos.2022.2022.0290

90 

Duhoux FP, Ameye G, Montano-Almendras CP, Bahloula K, Mozziconacci MJ, Laibe S, et al. PRDM16 (1p36) translocations define a distinct entity of myeloid malignancies with poor prognosis but may also occur in lymphoid malignancies. Br J Haematol. 2012;156:76–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08918.x

91 

Wang YW, Wang WS, Wang LY, Bao YR, Lu JW, Lu Y, et al. Extracellular matrix remodeling effects of serum amyloid A1 in the human amnion: implications for fetal membrane rupture. Am J Reprod Immunol. 2019;81:e13073. https://doi.org/10.1111/aji.13073

92 

Chernak B, Galan-Diez M, Ali AM, Cuesta-Dominguez A, Chen Z, Koehnke T, et al. Serum amyloid A1 (SAA1) secreted by the stromal microenvironment drives malignant clonal proliferation in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Blood. 2023;142:4118. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-174485

93 

Okuda Y. AA amyloidosis - benefits and prospects of IL-6 inhibitors. Mod Rheumatol. 2019;29:268–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/14397595.2018.1515145

94 

Jana AK, Greenwood AB, Hansmann UHE. Small peptides for inhibiting serum amyloid A aggregation. ACS Med Chem Lett. 2021;12:1613–21. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsmedchemlett.1c00456

95 

Martín-García D, García-Aranda M, Redondo M. Therapeutic potential of clusterin inhibition in human cancer. Cells. 2024;13:665. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells13080665

96 

Zhou Y, Tan Z, Xue P, Wang Y, Li X, Guan F. High-throughput, in-depth and estimated absolute quantification of plasma proteome using data-independent acquisition/mass spectrometry (“HIAP-DIA”). Proteomics. 2021;21:e2000264. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.202000264

97 

Liberti MV, Locasale JW. The Warburg effect: how does it benefit cancer cells? Trends Biochem Sci. 2016;41:211–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibs.2015.12.001

98 

Han JH, Lee EJ, Park W, Ha KT, Chung HS. Natural compounds as lactate dehydrogenase inhibitors: potential therapeutics for lactate dehydrogenase inhibitors-related diseases. Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1275000. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2023.1275000

99 

Guo L, Yang Y, Sheng Y, Wang J, Li W, Zhou X, et al. Galloflavin relieves the malignant behavior of colorectal cancer cells in the inflammatory tumor microenvironment. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:752118. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2021.752118

100 

Lu QY, Zhang L, Yee JK, Go VLW, Lee WN. Metabolic consequences of LDHA inhibition by epigallocatechin gallate and oxamate in MIA PaCa-2 pancreatic cancer cells. Metabolomics. 2015;11:71–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11306-014-0672-8