MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2231730507 · doi:10.1242/dmm.023143

Use of a genetically engineered mouse model as a preclinical tool for HER2 breast cancer

2015· article· en· W2231730507 on OpenAlexaff
Helen Creedon, Lucy A Balderstone, Morwenna Muir, Jozef Balla, Laura Gómez-Cuadrado, Natasha Tracey, Joseph Loane, Teresa Klinowska, William J. Muller, Valerie G. Brunton

Bibliographic record

VenueDisease Models & Mechanisms · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMedical Research CouncilIndian Council of Medical ResearchWorld Cancer Research FundCancer Research UKAstraZeneca
KeywordsGenetically engineeredBreast cancerGenetically modified organismCancerComputational biologyBiologyMedicineCancer researchGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resistance to human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapies presents a major clinical problem. Although preclinical studies have identified a number of possible mechanisms, clinical validation has been difficult. This is most likely to reflect the reliance on cell-line models that do not recapitulate the complexity and heterogeneity seen in human tumours. Here, we show the utility of a genetically engineered mouse model of HER2-driven breast cancer (MMTV-NIC) to define mechanisms of resistance to the pan-HER family inhibitor AZD8931. Genetic manipulation of MMTV-NIC mice demonstrated that loss of phosphatase and tensin homologue (PTEN) conferred de novo resistance to AZD8931, and a tumour fragment transplantation model was established to assess mechanisms of acquired resistance. Using this approach, 50% of tumours developed resistance to AZD8931. Analysis of the resistant tumours showed two distinct patterns of resistance: tumours in which reduced membranous HER2 expression was associated with an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and resistant tumours that retained HER2 expression and an epithelial morphology. The plasticity of the EMT phenotype was demonstrated upon re-implantation of resistant tumours that then showed a mixed epithelial and mesenchymal phenotype. Further AZD8931 treatment resulted in the generation of secondary resistant tumours that again had either undergone EMT or retained their original epithelial morphology. The data provide a strong rationale for basing therapeutic decisions on the biology of the individual resistant tumour, which can be very different from that of the primary tumour and will be specific to individual patients.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisease Models & MechanismsSame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207