MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract LB-376: Deregulation of promoter methylation of the polo-like kinases in myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and other blood neoplasms

2012· article· en· W2072739003 on OpenAlexaff
Alejandra Ward, Gayathri Sivakumar, Caroline Hamm, Sindu Kanjeekal, John W. Hudson

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsWindsor Regional HospitalUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolo-like kinasePLK1BiologyCancer researchDNA methylationMethylationCytokinesisMyelodysplastic syndromesKinaseMyeloid leukemiaLeukemiaCell cycleCancerBone marrowGeneCellGeneticsGene expressionCell divisionImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The polo-like kinases (Plks) are a cell cycle regulated family of proteins which are critical for several important cell cycle events which include entry into M-phase, cytokinesis, centriole duplication, and the DNA damage response. Deregulation of individual Plks have been associated with a malignant state. Typically, Plk1 has oncogenic properties and has been shown to be over-expressed in several types of malignancies such as head and neck squamous carcinomas and hepatocellular carcinoma. In the latter case, we previously demonstrated that in some cases this is due to loss of methylation in its promoter region with a corresponding change in expression. In contrast, we and others, have determined that plk2, plk4, and plk5 are often downregulated through DNA hypermethylation in blood neoplasms, hepatocelluar carcinoma, and glioblastoma, respectively. More specifically, plk2 is often hypermethylated at its promoter region in B-cell lymphomas, myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia. However, these studies have not been expanded to include the other plks. The purpose of the present study was to determine the methylation status of plks 1-5 in MDS and MDS derived blood neoplasms. Interestingly, we have determined that the plk1 promoter is methylated in 100% of normal bone marrow biopsies, whereas, in a malignant state, the methylation is found in only 60% of lymphomas and approximately 64% of MDS and leukemia samples assayed. Moreover, we see the opposite scenario occurring in the plk4 promoter region; in the normal samples, there was detectable promoter methylation in only 20% of our samples. Inversely, 80% of lymphoma and 64% of MDS and leukemia bone marrow samples were positive for methylation. A similar scenario was observed for plk3 in lymphoma bone marrow samples. The promoter methylation pattern noted above also corresponds to the pattern observed in a number of established cell lines derived from MDS patients with the exception of plk1, which is methylated in a subset of the lines tested. We have also initiated an analysis on the effect of common treatment regimes for MDS, such as Decitabine (5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine), on the methylation status of the plks in these cell lines. In the case of cells exposed to decitabine for a period of 7 days, we observed a decrease in the promoter methylation status for both plk1 and plk3. This indicates that the plks become deregulated in vivo through epigenetic mechanisms in blood neoplasms and are susceptible to demethylating agents in vitro. Given their critical roles in DNA damage and cell division, this aberrancy may contribute to tumourigenicity in MDS patients. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-376. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-LB-376

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207