Comparative genomic and genetic analysis of glioblastoma-derived brain tumor-initiating cells and their parent tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is a fatal cancer that has eluded major therapeutic advances. Failure to make progress may reflect the absence of a human GBM model that could be used to test compounds for anti-GBM activity. In this respect, the development of brain tumor-initiating cell (BTIC) cultures is a step forward because BTICs appear to capture the molecular diversity of GBM better than traditional glioma cell lines. Here, we perform a comparative genomic and genetic analysis of BTICs and their parent tumors as preliminary evaluation of the BTIC model. METHODS: We assessed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), genome-wide copy number variations (CNVs), gene expression patterns, and molecular subtypes of 11 established BTIC lines and matched parent tumors. RESULTS: Although CNV differences were noted, BTICs retained the major genomic alterations characteristic of GBM. SNP patterns were similar between BTICs and tumors. Importantly, recurring SNP or CNV alterations specific to BTICs were not seen. Comparative gene expression analysis and molecular subtyping revealed differences between BTICs and GBMs. These differences formed the basis of a 63-gene expression signature that distinguished cells from tumors; differentially expressed genes primarily involved metabolic processes. We also derived a set of 73 similarly expressed genes; these genes were not associated with specific biological functions. CONCLUSIONS: Although not identical, established BTIC lines preserve the core molecular alterations seen in their parent tumors, as well as the genomic hallmarks of GBM, without acquiring recurring BTIC-specific changes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".