MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract PR03: Myxopapillary spinal ependymomas demonstrate a Warburg phenotype

2015· article· en· W2220630609 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen C. Mack, Michael D. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFilum terminaleConus medullarisEpendymomaGene expression profilingBiologyPathologyPKM2Gene expressionCancer researchMedicineSpinal cordGeneNeuroscienceGeneticsPyruvate kinase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction: Spinal ependymomas are rare slow-growing tumors found in both children and adults. Myxopapillary ependymomas are a distinct histological variant arising predominantly in the conus medullaris, cauda equina, or filum terminale. Despite an overall favorable prognosis, distant metastases, subarachnoid dissemination, and late recurrences have been reported particularly in the pediatric population. Currently the only effective treatment for myxopapillary ependymoma is gross-total resection. We characterized the genomic and transcriptional landscape of spinal ependymomas in an effort to delineate the genetic basis of this disease and identify new leads for therapy. Methods: Gene expression profiling was performed on 35 spinal ependymomas (Affymetrix Gene 1.1ST), and copy number profiling on and overlapping cohort of 38 spinal ependymomas. (Affymetrix SNP6.0). GISTIC2.0 was used to identify significant broad and focal copy number events. Consensus hierarchical clustering and non-negative matrix factorization were used to establish subgroup assignments. Pathway analysis was performed using gene set enrichment analysis and visualized with Cytoscape: Enrichment map. Western blot analysis was used to confirm gene expression values. PKM2 expression was assessed in a non-overlapping series of 39 spinal ependymomas using immunohistochemistry. Functional validation experiments were performed on primary tumor lysates consisting of assays measuring pyruvate kinase M activity (PKM), hexokinase activity (HK), and lactate production. Results: At a gene expression level, we demonstrate that Grade II and myxopapillary spinal ependymomas are molecularly and biologically distinct. These findings are supported by specific copy number alterations occurring in each histological variant. Pathway analysis revealed that myxopapillary ependymoma are characterized by increased cellular metabolism, associated with up-regulation of HIF-1α and its transcriptional targets. These findings were validated by western blot analysis demonstrating increased protein expression of HIF-1α, PKM2, HK2, PDK1, and phosphorylation of PDHE1α. These findings were validated in an independent series of spinal ependymomas, confirming over-expression of PKM2 protein preferentially in myxopapillary tumors. Lastly, functional assays were performed on myxopapillary tumor lysates to demonstrate decreased PKM activity, increased HK activity, and elevated lactate production. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that myxopapillary ependymoma may be driven by a Warburg metabolic phenotype, mediated by the HIF1α transcriptional network. The key enzymes promoting the Warburg phenotype: HK2, PKM2, and PDK are targetable by next-generation small molecule inhibitors/activators that inhibit aerobic glycolysis, and which should be tested in pre-clinical studies as therapy for myxopapillary ependymoma. Citation Format: Stephen C. Mack, Michael D. Taylor. Myxopapillary spinal ependymomas demonstrate a Warburg phenotype. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Advances in Brain Cancer Research; May 27-30, 2015; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(23 Suppl):Abstract nr PR03.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→