MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2563337857 · doi:10.1182/blood.v126.23.170.170

Comprehensive Genomic and Transcript Profiling of CBL Gene in Childhood AML: A Report from Children's Oncology Group Studies AAML03P1, AAML0531 and COG/NCI Target AML Initiative

2015· article· en· W2563337857 sur OpenAlexaff
Diana Chin, Matthew A. Kutny, Jonathan Grim, Robert B. Gerbing, Kristen L. Miller, Jason E. Farrar, Jaime M. Guidry Auvil, Malcolm A. Smith, Daniela S. Gerhard, Tanja M. Davidsen, Patee Gesuwan, Leandro C. Hermida, Marco A. Marra, Andrew J. Mungall, Richard A. Moore, William D. Long, Yussanne Ma, Stuart Zong, E. Anders Kolb, Alan S. Gamis, Todd A. Alonzo, Soheil Meshinchi

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBiologyExonGeneticsGeneAlternative splicingCancer researchMolecular biology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The Casitas B-Lineage Lymphoma (CBL) gene encodes for an E3 ubiquitin ligase that targets activated receptor tyrosine kinases for degradation. Mutations of the CBL gene have been described in juvenile myelomonocytic leukemia (JMML) but less is known about mutations and variants of CBL in de novo AML. We previously reported that somatic mutations of CBL are rare in pediatric AML. In this report we present a comprehensive evaluation of genomic and transcript variants of CBL including novel deletion events as well as transcript variants which, in combination with somatic mutations, account for over 6% of pediatric AML with extreme association with inv(16) and favorable outcome. Initial assessment of CBL transcript in a cohort of 100 patients identified previously reported deletion of exon 8 (CBL ΔE8, N=2) associated with CBL splice mutations as well as a novel whole exon 8 and 9 deletion variant (CBL ΔE8+9, N=3) without identifiable underlying somatic alterations. Long distance PCR, as well as custom Nanostring CNV array evaluation revealed a genomic deletion underlying this transcript variant. Subsequent whole genome sequencing as part of COG/NCI TARGET AML initiative, identified discrete genomic deletions of 1998, 3588 and 6189 bp across exon 8 and 9, leading to the generation of this novel variant. We evaluated the functional consequence of the novel CBL ΔE8+9 deletion variant by expressing it in IL3-dependent Ba/F3 cell line. Compared to control cells, Ba/F3 cells expressing CBL ΔE8+9 demonstrated cytokine independent growth. A comprehensive profiling of CBL variants was conducted in 796 pediatric de novo AML patients by transcript profiling (transcript variants) or by exome capture sequencing (somatic mutations including point mutations and smaller indels). All patients were treated on Children's Oncology Group studies AAML03P1 (N=167) and AAML0531 (N=629) and presence of CBL variants was correlated with disease characteristics and clinical outcome. Of the 796 patient specimens tested, 50 patients (6.3%) had one of 3 distinct CBL variants; transcript variant (N=28), somatic mutation (N=14), or dual transcript variant and somatic mutation (N=8). All cases of CBL ΔE8+9 were associated with a corresponding genomic deletion. Out of 14 cases of CBL ΔE8 and 1 case of CBL ΔE9, only 4 cases (27%) had a splice site mutation identified as the underlying mechanism of splice variant. Presence of CBL variants was correlated with clinical characteristics and outcome. Those with CBL variants had a significantly higher prevalence of inv(16) compared with CBL wild type (WT) (37% vs. 13%, p<0.001). This association differed by CBL variant type; 44% transcript variants and 50% dual variants had inv(16) compared to 14% somatic mutations and 13% CBL WT (p<0.001). NPMc+ was more prevalent in those with CBL somatic mutations (29%) than transcript variant (4%), dual variant (0%) or CBL WT (8%) (p=0.035). Similarly, genetic risk groups differed between CBL variants vs. WT (Low risk 70% vs 39%, p=<0.001; Standard risk 22% vs. 46%, p=0.001; High risk 8% vs. 15%, p=0.196). Clinical characteristics including gender, age, race and ethnicity were not significantly different. FAB morphologic assessment revealed an enrichment for the M4 subtype in CBL variant vs. WT (53% vs. 23%, P<.001) which is likely accounted for by the association of inv(16) with this morphologic group. Patients with CBL variants had a 100% clinical remission rate by end of induction II compared to 89% for CBL WT patients (p=0.014). Survival from study entry was similar between CBL mutant vs. WT patients (5 year OS 72% vs. 66%, p=0.24; 5 year EFS 61% vs. 50%, p=0.11). Due to the strong association of CBL mutation with core binding factor leukemia, we assessed whether CBL variant was prognostic of outcome within this favorable risk group, but there was no significant difference in outcomes. Variants of the CBL gene in pediatric AML include genetic mutations with and without whole exon deletions. These CBL variants are highly associated with low risk AML but do not provide independent risk prognosis. The cooperating events of CBL variants in core binding factor leukemia deserve greater study. Our initial analysis of the transcript variants in a cell line model suggest that these large exon 8+9 deletions represent important oncogenic events. The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the important contributions of the late Dr. Robert Arceci to the AML TARGET initiative. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0,000
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: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,011
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,021

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

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

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 Opus0,055
Tête enseignante GPT0,323
Écart entre enseignants0,267 · 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
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→Travaux en français237 207→