MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2989524178 · doi:10.1182/blood-2019-123877

Clinical Categorization of Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia into Proliferative and Dysplastic Subtypes Correlates with Distinct Genomic, Transcriptomic and Epigenomic Signatures

2019· article· en· W2989524178 sur OpenAlexaff
Ryan M. Carr, Terra L. Lasho, David L. Marks, Ezequiel J. Tolosa, Luciana L. Almada, Bonnie Alver, Moritz Binder, Stephanie L. Safgren, Isaac P. Horn, Kurt Berger, Abhishek A. Mangaonkar, Guadalupe Belen Antelo, Giacomo Coltro, Christopher L. Pin, Thomas E. Witzig, Keith D. Robertson, Matthew T. Howard, Klaus Geißler, Naseema Gangat, Ayalew Tefferi, Animesh Pardanani, Aref Al‐Kali, Mark Litzow, Michelle A. Elliott, Scott H. Kaufmann, Martín E. Fernández-Zapico, Mrinal M. Patnaik

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésEpigenomicsH3K4me3BiologyEpigeneticsChronic myelomonocytic leukemiaDNA methylationGeneticsMedicineBone marrowImmunologyGeneMyelodysplastic syndromesGene expression

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), an aggressive myeloid malignancy, can be categorized into two subtypes, proliferative CMML (pCMML) and dysplastic (dCMML), based on a white blood cell (WBC) count of ≥ 13 x 109/L for the former (Arber et al. Blood 2016). While this WBC cut off is somewhat arbitrary, patients with pCMML have unique phenotypic features and a shorter survival. We carried out this study to assess the genomic, transcriptomic and epigenetic landscapes of these two CMML subtypes. Methods: Peripheral blood (PB) and bone marrow (BM) mononuclear cells (MNC) were obtained from WHO-defined CMML patients. Next generation sequencing (NGS) using a 36-gene panel was performed on 350 patients with Illumina HiSeq4000 platform with median read depth of 400X. RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) was performed on 25 patients by bulk whole transcriptome sequencing using Illumina TruSeq. DNA immunoprecipitation sequencing (DIP-seq) was performed on 18 patients using 5-methylcystocine (5mC), 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5hmC) and bridging monoclonal antibodies with subsequent paired-end sequencing using HiSeq4000. Chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) was performed on 30 patients with Illumina HiSeq2500 to a depth of 25 million for histone 3 lysine 4 monomethylation (H3K4me1) and histone 3 lysine 4 trimethylation (H3K4me3) and 50 million reads for histone 3 lysine 27 trimethylation (H3K27me3) and Input per sample. Results: Five hundred and seventy-three patients with WHO defined CMML were included; median age 71 years (range 18-95 years), 67% males. 282 patients had pCMML (49%), while 291 (51%) had dCMML. As pre-defined, patients with pCMML were more likely to have higher absolute monocyte counts (p<0.0001), circulating immature myeloid cells (p<0.0001), PB blasts (p<0.0001), and higher lactate dehydrogenase levels (p=0.03). At last follow up 234 (41%) deaths and 70 (20%) leukemic transformations were documented. The median OS for pCMML vs dCMML in this cohort was 19 months vs 30 months (p<0.0001, Figure 1A) and validated in an independent Austrian cohort (p=0.02). Genomic profiling: NGS performed on 350 patients (BM MNC) revealed a higher frequency of NRAS (35 vs 17%, p=0.004), cumulative RAS pathway (NRAS, KRAS, CBL and PTPN11) (73 vs 47%, p=0.001), ASXL1 (p=0.003) and JAK2V617F (p=0.04) mutations in pCMML relative to dCMML (Figure 1B); while dCMML had a higher frequency of SF3B1 mutations (p=0.02). There were no differences in distribution of TET2 and SRSF2Transcriptomic analysis: RNA-seq was performed on PB MNC from RAS pathway mutant pCMML patients (n=12) and RAS pathway wildtype dCMML patients (n=13). Unsupervised clustering analysis resulted in appropriate segregation revealing distinct expression profiles between disease subtypes (Figure 1C). Compared to dCMML, 3729 genes were significantly differentially upregulated and 2658 genes were differentially downregulated in pCMML. Among genes most highly upregulated were mitotic checkpoint kinases including AURBK, PLK1, PLK2, PLK4 andEpigenetic profiling: ChIP-seq of PB and BM MNC from pCMML (n=18) and dCMML (n=12) patients and healthy, age-matched controls (n=10) revealed a global increase in H3K4me1, without significant differences in H3K4me3 or H3K27me3 occupancies (regardless of stratification by ASXL1 mutational status; 40% ASXL1mt in pCMML, 30% dCMML) in pCMML vs dCMML (Figure 1D). H3K4me1 occupancy was also increased in a sequence-specific manner at the transcription start sites of the aforementioned mitotic kinases (PLK1 and WEE1). DIP-seq was performed on PB MNC to assess global differences in 5-mC and 5-hmC levels, between pCMML (n=9) and dCMML (n=9), with no differences seen between the two subtypes (regardless of TET2 mutational status, 40% TET2mt in each subtype) (Figure 1E). Conclusions: Despite the somewhat arbitrary WBC distinction between pCMML and dCMML, clear phenotypic, genetic, transcriptomic, epigenetic and survival differences exist between the two subtypes, providing strong biological rationale for this distinction. pCMML patients have a higher frequency of oncogenic RAS pathway mutations, a unique transcriptomic profile enriched in mitotic check point kinases and a unique chromatin configuration with global and sequence specific enrichment in H3K4me1, with no significant global differences in 5mC, 5hmC, or H3K4me3 and H3K27me3 occupancy. Figure 1 Disclosures Geissler: AOP: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Ratiopharm: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Al-Kali:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Patnaik:Stem Line Pharmaceuticals.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

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 enseignants0,001
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,004

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 Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,263
Écart entre enseignants0,254 · 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

Citations1
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

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