Global analysis of chromosome X gene expression in primary cultures of normal ovarian surface epithelial cells and epithelial ovarian cancer cell lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interpretation of loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in cancers is complicated as genes that map to LOH regions may be transcriptionally active (Xa) or inactive (Xi) due to X chromosome inactivation (XCI). We have analyzed the chromosome X transcriptome in four epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) cell lines (TOV21G, TOV81D, TOV112D, and OV90) and 12 primary cultures of normal ovarian surface epithelial (NOSE) cells in relation to chromosome X integrity. Two-way comparative analysis using HuGeneFL Affymetrix GeneChips of TOV21G, TOV81D and OV90 relative to the NOSE samples was highly correlated (> 89%) in contrast to that of TOV112D (56-69%). TOV112D, followed by TOV21G, exhibited the largest number of up-regulated genes. XIST expression by RT-PCR was not detectable in TOV112D or TOV21G. Allele-specific transcription by cDNA sequence analysis of genes known to be subjected to XCI revealed maintenance of XCI in TOV81D and OV90, but not TOV21G. Biallelic expression could not be assessed in TOV112D due to reduction to hemizygosity of chromosome X. Chromosome X rearrangements were observed in FISH analysis of TOV112D and TOV21G, and both of these EOC cell lines were negative for Barr body analysis. The differentially expressed genes did not appear to map to any particular region of the X chromosome in any EOC cell line. The absence of XIST expression is consistent with Barr body loss in TOV112D and TOV21G. The combined evidence is consistent with two proposed mechanisms to account for absence of Xi in female cancers: Xi loss followed by Xa duplication (exemplified by TOV112D) and transcriptional reactivation of Xi (exemplified by TOV21G). Despite an alteration in XIST expression and differences in allelic content in the EOC cell lines, the chromosome X transcriptome was modified modestly when compared with that of NOSE samples.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".