MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2318349396 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.sabcs-2027

Validation of a custom 512-gene breast cancer panel on the illumina-based DASL mRNA expression platform: focus on triple negative breast tumors using RNA from stored formalin-fixed, paraffin blocks.

2009· article· en· W2318349396 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Abramovitz, Charles Catzavelos, Z Li, Maja Kodani, BG Barwick, Wenhao Tang, CS Moreno, Mark Bouzyk, B Leyland-Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerConcordanceMultiplexGene expressionMolecular biologyImmunohistochemistryBiologyGeneCancer researchCancerPathologyMedicineBioinformaticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract #2027 Background: DASL (cDNA-mediated Annealing, Selection, extension Ligation) is a recently described, RT-PCR-based, multiplex gene expression assay developed by Illumina specifically for use with fragmented RNA prepared from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples. For use with this assay, we have designed a custom 512-gene breast cancer panel, validated this panel with FFPE breast tumor samples, and identified novel genes associated with the triple negative (TN) subtype. Material and Methods: The DASL assay was used to measure mRNA levels from RNA isolated from 5 um FFPE breast tumor sections using the Roche High Pure Kit. Samples that passed our quality control tests were run in the assay. Arrays were imaged using a BeadArray Reader and data was analyzed using BeadStudio software. Differential mRNA regulation was identified by Significance Analysis of Microarrays software using a false discover rate (q-value < 0.01) or Bonferroni correction of the two-tailed Student's t-test. IHC concordance was measured by mRNA expression fold-change for positive versus negative IHC categories. Results: To validate our custom breast cancer panel, we performed the DASL assay on 187 samples from 87 patients with differing receptor status as previously determined by IHC (ER, PR, HER2) and/or FISH (HER2). Correlation between 152 common genes on Illumina's 502-gene standard cancer panel and our custom panel was very high; R2 value of 0.88. Concordance between IHC/FISH and DASL data for ESR1, PGR and ERBB2 was > 90%. We identified 73 genes differentially expressed between TN and the other tumor samples. Of these, 20 were in common between the standard and custom panels, 53 were uniquely expressed on the custom panel. These included genes associated with the TN/Basal subtype identified in previous microarray studies; CXCL1, CDH3, ANXA8, KRT5, TRIM29, KRT17, MFGE8, CX3CL1, FZD7, CHI3L2, B3GNT5 (PNAS 100:8418, 2003) and CDH3, CRABP1, CX3CL1, FOXC1, MMP7 (BMC Genomics 7:96, 2006) further validating both DASL assay and custom panel. In addition, we identified genes not previously linked to the TN subtype, highlighting the potential utility of the custom panel for profiling breast tumor FFPE specimens in the DASL assay. Discussion: We have designed and validated a custom 512-gene breast cancer panel for expression profiling studies using RNA prepared from FFPE tumor specimens on the DASL platform. Thus far, we have identified a 73-gene set with the custom panel (significantly more genes than with the standard panel) that can discriminate TN from other receptor expressing subtypes. We are now applying this platform to samples from clinical trials in order to identify both prognostic and predictive breast tumor gene sets. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(2 Suppl):Abstract nr 2027.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicMolecular Biology Techniques and Applications→French-language works237,207→