Abstract A189: Identification of antibody-drug conjugate targets using curated public data, in-house glycoproteomics, and a surrogate in vitro ADC assay
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a promising approach for cancer therapy, combining the specificity of an antibody with the potency of small-molecule toxins. To identify cellular targets for the development of new ADCs, we have set out to identify proteins that (1) are expressed on the cell surface; (2) have high specificity for tumors, with relatively low expression on normal tissues; and (3) can internalize into the tumor cell by a mechanism that enables the delivery and activation of sufficient amounts of toxin to kill cancer cells. Here at the NRC, we have built a pipeline to identify new ADC targets, incorporating public gene expression data mining and glycoproteomic profiling, followed by in vitro screening through a surrogate ADC assay. Public data enable the analysis of large numbers of human tumors and normal tissues, providing a population-based estimate of gene expression. Through curation of the Gene Expression Omnibus, we have built a microarray database that contains >26,000 tumor samples and >8,800 normal samples, all on the Affymetrix HGU133 Plus 2.0 platform. We have also collected RNA-seq data for >5,000 normal samples from the GTEx database, and 6,900 tumor samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas. These samples cover a broad range of tissues: blood, bone marrow, brain, breast, colon, heart, kidney, liver, lung, muscle, ovary, pancreas, prostate, skin, stomach, and uterus. To identify candidates for ADC development, we first classify tumors into subtypes through consensus clustering followed by a Monte Carlo implementation of our iterative ensemble classification methods. Next, we perform differential gene expression analysis between normal tissues and known or novel cancer subtypes. In one example, we have identified 50 breast cancer targets, 7 of which have already been developed as ADCs to the clinical trial stage by others, demonstrating the validity and promise of this approach (Fauteux et al., 2016). Glycoproteomics data are typically derived from small numbers of samples, making a population-based analysis less informative. Therefore, we have integrated glycoproteomic data into our target selection pipeline in two ways. First, glycoproteomics has been used to profile the cell surface of 11 tumor cell lines. Using an approach with high specificity for cell-surface glycoproteins, over 200 cell-surface proteins have been identified for each cell line. This data enables the selection of targets that are amenable to our in vitro functional assay for ADC activity, based on expression in our screen-adapted cell lines. Glycoproteomics has also been used to identify and prioritize targets upregulated during hypoxia or epithelial-mesenchymal transition, two important aspects of tumor biology. For example, cellular glycoproteins from four pancreatic cell lines were profiled under normoxic and hypoxic conditions, identifying >70 proteins upregulated under hypoxic conditions. These glycoproteomic datasets, in conjunction with the public data analysis, are being used to identify promising ADC targets. Based on these target selection methods, we are currently producing and screening thousands of NRC monoclonal and single-domain antibodies generated against a variety of cancer-associated cell surface targets and screening them for ADC activity, in vitro and in vivo. Citation Format: Jennifer J. Hill, François Fauteux, Tammy-Lynn Tremblay, Maria Jaramillo. Identification of antibody-drug conjugate targets using curated public data, in-house glycoproteomics, and a surrogate in vitro ADC assay [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A189.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».