Journal of Cell Science & Therapy
Open Access

Molecular Stratification of Heterogeneous Disease Phenotypes in Precision Medicine

Kekiko Suzuki^{* *}Correspondence: Kekiko Suzuki, Department of Medical Genome Sciences, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Japan, Email:

Author info »

Description

Molecular medicine investigates molecular and cellular mechanisms that contribute to human disease, enabling personalised diagnostic and therapeutic approaches accordingly. Deep within molecular medicine lies the detection of abnormal gene expression patterns, defective proteins and disturbed signalling cascades that play significant roles in disease onset and progression. Specific in this domain begins with high-throughput technologies such as Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS), digital Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), proteomic profiling and multiplexed biomarker assays. Through these methods, it is possible to detect low frequency mutations, quantify deregulated transcripts and assess post translational modifications in clinical specimens. This level of resolution transforms how diagnostic workflows are structured and instead of treating a broad disease category, one may define molecular subtypes based on pathway activation, mutation burden or epigenetic signatures. Inherited monogenic disorders arise from mutations in a single gene, whereas a far more demanding scenario occurs in conditions influenced by numerous gene variants combined with environmental triggers and interacting cellular processes. In such instances, molecular level profiling can stratify patients into cohorts with shared molecular vulnerabilities or therapeutic susceptibilities. A given tumour may not simply be defined by tissue origin but by a constellation of actionable targets such as receptor over expression, DNA repair deficiencies or immune-evasive signalling loops. Customized intervention can then be directed at these vulnerabilities rather than the generic disease phenotype [1–5].

The development of molecular diagnostics has expanded beyond genomics to encompass proteomics, metabolomics and multi omics integration. Biomarkers composed of nucleic acids, proteins, lipids or metabolites provide insight not only into disease presence but also into functional states of cells, such as proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis or immune activation. The speed and sensitivity of modern detection platforms allow identification of alterations at very early stages, thereby opening the possibility of pre-emptive intervention. Heterogeneity within and between patients demands robust algorithms and large datasets to validate molecular signatures and ensure reproducibility. The translation of molecular findings into a clinical tools requires rigorous standardisation of sample collection, assay performance, data interpretation and reporting. Additionally, the economic and logistical burden of implementing advanced molecular workflows in routine practice often limits widespread adoption.

The conceptual evolution from organ-based disease definitions to molecularly defined entities is rapidly rewriting diagnostic and therapeutic paradigms. With this shift, the optimal scenario is one where a patient’s disease is characterised at the molecular level and matched to a treatment strategy designed around the specific derangements identified. Such alignment has the potential to improve outcomes, reduce unnecessary treatment exposure and open avenues for intervention in traditionally refractory conditions. Molecular medicine represents a pivotal transformation in clinical strategy and the shift from symptomatic management to mechanism based intervention. As molecular profiling continues to become more accessible and assays more refined, the integration of molecular data into the clinical workflow will increasingly guide the selection of therapies, monitor responses and personalise care pathways.

Expanding the discourse in molecular medicine, it becomes apparent that integration of multi layered molecular data into patient analysis is becoming increasingly significant. In particular, investigations leveraging high throughput sequencing and multi omic assays reveal that reliance on genomic data alone undervalues the complexity of pathobiology. For instance, incorporation of transcriptomic and epigenetic profiles molds a richer molecular picture such as in one study where over one third of patients with advanced solid tumours, harbouring transcriptome matched abnormalities responded to targeted interventions [6–12].

References

1. Tart RP, Kotzur IM, Mancuso AA, Glantz MS, Mukherji SK. CT and MR imaging of the buccal space and buccal space masses. Radiographics 1995; 15: 531-550 

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

2. Kurabayashi T, Ida M, Yoshino N, Sasaki T, Kishi T, Kusama M. Computed tomography in the diagnosis of buccal space masses. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 1997; 26: 347-353. 

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

3. Kurabayashi T, Ida M, Tetsumura A, Ohbayashi N, Yasumoto M, Sasaki T. MR imaging of benign and malignant lesions in the buccal space. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2002; 31: 344-349. 

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

4. Wu CH, Chang YL, Hsu WC, Ko JY, Sheen TS, Hsieh FJ. Usefulness of Doppler spectral analysis and power Doppler sonography in the differentiation of cervical lymphadenopathies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 171: 503-509.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

5. Ying M, Ahuja A, Brook F. Accuracy of sonographic vascular features in differentiating different causes of cervical lymphadenopathy. Ultrasound Med Biol 2004; 30: 441-447.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

6. Kagawa T, Yuasa K, Fukunari F, Shiraishi T, Miwa K. Quantitative evaluation of vascularity within cervical lymph nodes using Doppler ultrasound in patients with oral cancer: Relation to lymph node size. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 415-421 

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

7. Shimizu M, Ussmuller J, Hartwein J, Donath K. A comparative study of sonographic and histopathologic findings of tumorous lesions in the parotid gland. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1999; 88: 723-737 

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

8. El-Khateeb SM, Abou-Khalaf AE, Farid MM, Nassef MA. A prospective study of three diagnostic sonographic methods in differentiation between benign and malignant salivary gland tumours. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40: 476-485.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

9. Wu S, Liu G, Chen R, Guan Y. Role of ultrasound in the assessment of benignity and malignancy of parotid masses. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 131-135.

   [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

10. Ching AS, Ahuja AT. High-resolution sonography of the submandibular space: anatomy and abnormalities. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 179: 703-708.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

11. Chandak R, Degwekar S, Bhowte RR, Motwani M, Banode P, Chandak M, et al. An evaluation of efficacy of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of head and neck swellings. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011; 40:213-221.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

12. Kami YN, Chikui T, Okamura K, Kubota Y, Oobu K, Yabuuchi H, et al. Imaging findings of neurogenic tumours in the head and neck region. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2012; 41: 18-23.

    [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]