MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4389235322 · doi:10.1182/blood-2023-185914

Large-Scale Genomic Analysis of Mutational Hotspots in Burkitt Lymphoma and Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma

2023· article· en· W4389235322 sur OpenAlexaff
Manuela Cruz, Kostiantyn Dreval, Prasath Pararajalingam, Laura K. Hilton, Jasper Wong, Christopher Rushton, Ryan D. Morin

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2023
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
ThématiqueCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreSimon Fraser University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBiologyDiffuse large B-cell lymphomaExome sequencingExomeDeep sequencingComputational biologyGeneticsGenomeLymphomaMutationGeneImmunology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: The diverse pathways that are deregulated during the malignant transformation of B-cells have been identified for many of the common mature B cell neoplasms, but a comprehensive description of the driver mutations that alter the function of proteins in these pathways remains incomplete. Specific variants may be distinguishing features of disease or largely restricted to disease subtypes, while other variants may be more widespread between subtypes. Mutations that are prevalent in certain immune cancers can be found at a lower frequency in other subtypes, which can affect the relevance of targeted therapeutics. Manual curation of hotspots is crucial to minimize noise and enhance statistical power for detecting hotspots present at lower frequencies, as certain regions in the genome are more susceptible to sequencing artifacts and data sourced from multiple cohorts can be prone to batch effects. Through the integration of mutational variants between Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and by employing manual validation of mutational variants to reduce sequencing noise, it is possible to identify novel mutational hotspots within the two subtypes. Methods: Mutational hotspot analyses were performed on a combined cohort consisting of BL and DLBCL samples that had undergone either whole genome sequencing (644 samples) or whole exome sequencing (1996 samples), for a total of 2640 samples. Samples were sourced from a combination of in-house and external datasets, comprising 28 datasets in total. Simple somatic mutations (SSMs) were identified using four variant callers: Strelka2, MuTect2, SAGE, and LoFreq. Mutational hotspots and significantly mutated genes (SMGs) were identified from coding region variants with HotMAPS, OncodriveCLUSTL, and OncodriveFML using a consensus approach of 2/3 tools. The curation of hotspots is performed by manual inspection of hotspot loci from the automated generation of IGV snapshots. Results: A large number of SMGs and hotspots were identified due to the size of our analysis cohort. HotMAPS identified 180 genes at a q-value of 0.01, OncodriveCLUSTL identified 219 genes at a q-value of 0.001, and OncodriveFML identified 105 genes at a q-value of 0.01. A total of 106 SMGs were identified by at least two tools, with 35 SMGs identified by all three tools (Figure 1). Among these genes, only 10 have not yet been incorporated in the Cancer Genome Census which may be used to estimate the quality of driver genes returned by these tools. Comparing to our curated list of genes previously associated with either BL or DLBCL, 39 of the genes with two votes and only 2 of the 35 genes with three votes are novel. HotMAPS and OncodriveCLUSTL identified a total of 207 and 254 hotspots, of which 109 and 110 hotspots were identified in the genes called by two or more tools, respectively, with overlapping HotMAPS and OncodriveCLUSTL hotspots occurring in 65 genes. Of the coding SSMs occurring in genes with two votes, 13% of hotspot mutations (HSMs) existed in both HotMAPS and OncodriveCLUSTL hotspots (Figure 2). Within the 207 hotspots called by HotMAPS, 177 (86%) were supported by variants from genome and capture samples, with the remaining 30 hotspots (14%) being exome-specific. Within these 207 hotspots, 160 (77%) were identified in both matched and unmatched-normal samples, while 47 (23%) were only identified in unmatched samples. Of the 254 hotspots identified by OncodriveCLUSTL, 191 (75%) were supported by both genome and capture samples and 63 (25%) were exome-specific. Both matched and unmatched samples contributed to 151 (59%) of the OncodriveCLUSTL hotspots and 103 hotspots (41%) were found only in unmatched samples. Conclusions: All but two of the 35 genes identified by all three tools have been previously associated with DLBCL or BL as driver genes, which highlights the robustness of using this suite of tools to identify novel driver genes and mutational hotspots. Out of the 106 genes identified by at least two tools, 39 have not yet been classified as driver genes and may be novel NHL drivers. Manual inspection of the hotspots identified by HotMAPS and OncodriveCLUSTL is performed to expand curated blacklists and whitelists of mutational hotspots to minimize the impact of low-quality variants and improve power for detecting hotspots with lower mutation frequencies.

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)0,002
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 enseignants0,002
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,005

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,001
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 Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,222
Écart entre enseignants0,217 · 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
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→Travaux en français237 207→