MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124890939 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-11-1431

Integrative Genomics Identified <i>RFC3</i> As an Amplified Candidate Oncogene in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

2012· article· en· W2124890939 on OpenAlexafffund
William W. Lockwood, Kelsie L. Thu, Lin Lin, Larissa A. Pikor, Raj Chari, Wan L. Lam, David G. Beer

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthWellcome TrustUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsBiologyCarcinogenesisCancerGene duplicationOncogeneCopy-number variationGene knockdownCandidate geneMalignancyCancer researchCDKN2ABarrett's esophagusComparative genomic hybridizationGenomicsAdenocarcinomaGeneGenomeGeneticsCell cycle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is a lethal malignancy that can develop from the premalignant condition, Barrett's esophagus (BE). Currently, there are no validated simple methods to predict which patients will progress to EAC. A better understanding of the genetic mechanisms driving EAC tumorigenesis is needed to identify new therapeutic targets and develop biomarkers capable of identifying high-risk patients that would benefit from aggressive neoadjuvant therapy. We employed an integrative genomics approach to identify novel genes involved in EAC biology that may serve as useful clinical markers. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Whole genome tiling-path array comparative genomic hybridization was used to identify significant regions of copy number alteration in 20 EACs and 10 matching BE tissues. Copy number and gene expression data were integrated to identify candidate oncogenes within regions of amplification and multiple additional sample cohorts were assessed to validate candidate genes. RESULTS: We identified RFC3 as a novel, candidate oncogene activated by amplification in approximately 25% of EAC samples. RFC3 was also amplified in BE from a patient whose EAC harbored amplification and was differentially expressed between nonmalignant and EAC tissues. Copy number gains were detected in other cancer types and RFC3 knockdown inhibited proliferation and anchorage-independent growth of cancer cells with increased copy number but had little effect on those without. Moreover, high RFC3 expression was associated with poor patient outcome in multiple cancer types. CONCLUSIONS: RFC3 is a candidate oncogene amplified in EAC. RFC3 DNA amplification is also prevalent in other epithelial cancer types and RFC3 expression could serve as a prognostic marker.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.209
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.332 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations42
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207