Genomic analysis of genetic heterogeneity and evolution in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resistance to chemotherapy in ovarian cancer is poorly understood. Evolutionary models of cancer predict that, following treatment, resistance emerges either because of outgrowth of an intrinsically resistant sub-clone or evolves in residual disease under the selective pressure of treatment. To investigate genetic evolution in high-grade serous (HGS) ovarian cancers, we first analysed cell line series derived from three cases of HGS carcinoma before and after platinum resistance had developed (PEO1, PEO4 and PEO6; PEA1 and PEA2; and PEO14 and PEO23). Analysis with 24-colour fluorescence in situ hybridisation and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) showed mutually exclusive endoreduplication and loss of heterozygosity events in clones present at different time points in the same individual. This implies that platinum-sensitive and -resistant disease was not linearly related, but shared a common ancestor at an early stage of tumour development. Array CGH analysis of six paired pre- and post-neoadjuvant treatment HGS samples from the CTCR-OV01 clinical study did not show extensive copy number differences, suggesting that one clone was strongly dominant at presentation. These data show that cisplatin resistance in HGS carcinoma develops from pre-existing minor clones but that enrichment for these clones is not apparent during short-term chemotherapy treatment.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".