Contrasting in vivo and in vitro fates of glioblastoma cell subpopulations with amplified <i>EGFR</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the high incidence of EGFR amplification in patient glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) tissues, only a single GBM cell line, of the many described in the literature, is known to contain and maintain amplified EGFR. Because EGFR mutations in GBM manifest primarily, if not exclusively, in amplified form, it follows that the availability of cell lines with mutation of endogenous EGFR would also be in short supply. In fact, there are no GBM cell lines harboring the common EGFR mutants described in patient GBMs. These observations suggest that in vivo environments select for EGFR amplification, whereas in vitro environments, specifically cell cultures, select against this gene alteration. To contrast directly the fates of EGFR amplification in vivo and in vitro, as well as to examine potential relationships between EGFR amplification and mutation, we have established and maintained GBM explants as xenografts by serial passaging in nude mice. Analysis of EGFR copy number and EGFR mutation status in 11 patient tumors and their corresponding xenografts, as well as the monitoring of EGFR copy number during the establishment of a GBM cell line from a xenograft with amplified EGFR, indicated that selection for EGFR amplification is an in vivo phenomenon. Furthermore, our data indicated that EGFR mutation occurs only in tumors with EGFR amplification and showed that the selection of amplified mutant EGFR over amplified wild-type EGFR as a xenograft occurred rapidly and completely during tumor propagation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".