MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2396850485 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.nonrna15-b37

Abstract B37: Small nucleolar RNAs – New players in breast cancer prognosis

2016· article· en· W2396850485 sur OpenAlexaff
Preethi Krishnan, Sunita Ghosh, Bo Wang, Dongping Li, Richard Berendt, John R. Mackey, Olga Kovalchuk, Sambasivarao Damaraju

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueRNA modifications and cancer
Établissements canadiensUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSmall nucleolar RNABiologyBiogenesisLong non-coding RNABreast cancerCarcinogenesisComputational biologyTranscriptomeMethylationCancer researchGeneticsCancerRNAGeneBioinformaticsGene expression

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Small nucleolar RNAs (snoRNAs) are small non-coding RNAs that are predominantly involved in biogenesis of rRNAs and in modifications (methylation and pseudouridylation) of other RNAs such as rRNAs and tRNAs. Although snoRNAs were initially considered as housekeeping genes, recent literature indicated relative variations in their expression in tumors compared to normal tissues. snoRNAs have also been observed to play a role in cellular differentiation, proliferation, apoptosis, splicing mechanisms, and in some instances, in regulation of gene expression, suggesting that dysregulation of this class of small RNAs may contribute to tumorigenesis. snoRNAs have shown promise as diagnostic and/or prognostic markers for cancers such as lung and leukemia. Elevated snoRNAs and the genes involved in their biogenesis have also been reported to be important for Breast Cancer (BC). However, their role as prognostic markers in BC has not been addressed. Objectives: (i) To identify differentially expressed (DE) snoRNAs in BC and (ii) To identify snoRNAs as prognostic markers for BC. Methods: Small RNA libraries from 104 BC cases and 11 normal breast tissues (reduction mammoplasty) were generated for next generation sequencing (NGS), and bioinformatic analysis was carried out using Partek Genomics Suite 6.6. snoRNAs were annotated using Ensembl database. RPKM normalized data was adjusted for potential batch effects and was filtered for snoRNAs with ≥ 10 read counts in at least 90% of the samples. snoRNAs exhibiting a fold change >2.0 and a false discovery rate < 0.05 were considered as DE. Our study design included two approaches to identify prognostic markers: case-control (CC) and case-only (CO). While the CC approach tests only the DE set of snoRNAs for association with outcomes (Overall Survival, OS and Recurrence Free Survival, RFS), CO approach is an unbiased approach independent of the control tissues used, and interrogates all the snoRNAs retained after filtering. Since individual markers are not adequate to capture the complex interactions involved in conferring a phenotype, risk scores were constructed using snoRNAs significant in Univariate Cox proportional hazards regression model. Estimated risk scores were subjected to receiver operating characteristic curves to dichotomize patients into low and high-risk groups, followed by a multivariate analysis to adjust for potential confounders (SAS v9.3 and R statistical program). P<0.05 was considered to be statistically significant for all tests. Results: In the CC approach, 768 snoRNAs were profiled and 88 were retained after filtering, of which 40 were DE (31 down regulated and 9 up regulated); of these, five and four snoRNAs were significant for OS and RFS, respectively. In the CO approach, 763 snoRNAs were profiled, of which 95 were retained after filtering; of these, twelve and ten snoRNAs were significant for OS and RFS, respectively and includes the snoRNAs identified by CC approach. In both the approaches, patients belonging to high-risk group were associated with poor prognosis and the risk score was significant after adjusting for confounders. Platform concordance of the results will be assessed by qRT-PCR for representative snoRNAs. Validations of these findings in independent datasets are in progress. Summary: This is the first study to comprehensively analyse the role of snoRNAs as prognostic markers for BC using NGS. The combined risk score from the signatures was identified as potential independent prognostic factor for BC. Conclusions: Dysregulation of snoRNAs in breast tumors relative to normal were identified, indicating that these small RNAs could potentially contribute to breast tumorigenesis. As expected, CO approach identified higher numbers of markers with prognostic significance, highlighting the importance of adopting an unbiased approach in a biomarker study. Citation Format: Preethi Krishnan, Sunita Ghosh, Bo Wang, Dongping Li, Richard Berendt, John R. Mackey, Olga Kovalchuk, Sambasivarao Damaraju. Small nucleolar RNAs – New players in breast cancer prognosis. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on Noncoding RNAs and Cancer: Mechanisms to Medicines ; 2015 Dec 4-7; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2016;76(6 Suppl):Abstract nr B37.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,008
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,028

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,375
Écart entre enseignants0,303 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Research→Même sujetRNA modifications and cancer→Travaux en français237 207→