Novel automated three‐dimensional genome scanning based on the nuclear architecture of telomeres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Telomeres, the end of chromosomes, are organized in a nonoverlapping fashion and form microterritories in nuclei of normal cells. Previous studies have shown that normal and tumor cell nuclei differ in their 3D telomeric organization. The differences include a change in the spatial organization of the telomeres, in telomere numbers and sizes and in the presence of telomeric aggregates. Previous attempts to identify the above parameters of 3D telomere organization were semi-automated. Here we describe the automation of 3D scanning for telomere signatures in interphase nuclei based on three-dimensional fluorescent in situ hybridization (3D-FISH) and, for the first time, define its sensitivity in tumor cell detection. The data were acquired with a high-throughput scanning/acquisition system that allows to measure cells and acquire 3D images of nuclei at high resolution with 40 × or 60 × oil and at a speed of 10,000-15,000 cells h(-1) , depending on the cell density on the slides. The automated scanning, TeloScan, is suitable for large series of samples and sample sizes. We define the sensitivity of this automation for tumor cell detection. The data output includes 3D telomere positions, numbers of telomeric aggregates, telomere numbers, and telomere signal intensities. We were able to detect one aberrant cell in 1,000 normal cells. In conclusions, we are able to detect tumor cells based on 3D architectural profiles of the genome. This new tool could, in the future, assist in patient diagnosis, in the detection of minimal residual disease, in the analysis of treatment response and in treatment decisions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".