MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2327705112 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am10-4087

Abstract 4087: Large intergenic noncoding RNAs associated with Ewing sarcoma family of tumors

2010· article· en· W2327705112 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Wai, Dai‐Ying Wu, Michele R. Wing, R.J. Arceci, C. Patrick Reynolds, Poul H. Sorensen, Gregory H. Reamon, Patrice M. Milos, Elizabeth R. Lawlor, Jonathan D. Buckley, Philipp Kapranov, Timothy J. Triche

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySarcomaGeneticsIntergenic regionGeneDNA microarrayGenomicsPediatric cancerRNAGene expression profilingComputational biologyCancerGenomeGene expressionMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: Ewing sarcoma family of tumors (EFT) represents the second most common primary malignant bone tumor in children and adolescents. The majority of EFTs harbor a translocation (t11;22)(q24;q12) resulting in the expression of the EWS-FLI1 chimeric oncoprotein. We hypothesized that microarray gene expression profiling, in combination with next-generation sequencing technology, could be used to identify EFT-specific genes and transcripts including large intergenic noncoding (linc)RNAs. Next-generation sequencing, coupled with target enrichment for validation, can also identify driver mutations of metastasis and treatment resistance in high-risk cases. RESULTS: Genome-wide expression profiles of childhood sarcoma and normal tissues were analyzed using both Partek Genomics Suite as well as our own customized software, Genetrix. These are compared with Helicos single molecule sequencing data. The results show that both known genes and candidate lincRNAs strongly associate with EFT and can be used to distinguish EFT from other childhood tumors. Moreover, many lincRNAs are seen on both the poly-A selected track and on the random hexamer primed total RNA expression profile, indicating that the transcripts are multi-exonic and poly-adenylated. Importantly, regions of EFT-associated lincRNA expression may indicate regions that are deregulated by EWS-FLI1 in these tumors. We also focused on lincRNAs with differential expression in an EFT cell line pair (CHLA-9 and −10) derived, respectively, from patient-matched primary and metastatic tumors. RNA-seq determined ∼160,000 regions representing ∼16MB of genomic sequence as being at least 3-fold differentially expressed between the two cell lines. A higher threshold of at least 10-fold expression difference still revealed ∼20,000 regions representing ∼2MB of genomic sequence. In addition, the proportion of differentially-expressed intergenic transcripts was higher in CHLA-9 (18.1%) versus CHLA-10 (11.2%). Annotated transcripts with at least 10-fold expression in CHLA-10 are enriched in plasma membrane and adhesion-related functions, and this is consistent with metastatic behavior. Genes most highly expressed in CHLA-10 include ANXA5, FABP3, and HIST1H1A, whereas genes with much lower expression include CXCL14, MCTP2, and TRIM22. These genes, along with lincRNAs, may play important roles in disease progression and drug resistance. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified several large intergenic noncoding (linc)RNAs that are highly and differentially expressed by EFT. We hypothesize that these lincRNAs may be novel therapeutic targets in EFT. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 4087.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research→French-language works237,207→