MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2565911184 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2015-2080

Abstract 2080: Differential transcription profile of epithelia in fimbria versus the ampulla of the fallopian tube

2015· article· en· W2565911184 on OpenAlexaff
Sophia George, Anca Milea, Noor Salman, Patricia A. Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFallopian tubeBiologyOviductAmpullaAndrologyTranscriptomeSerous carcinomaSerous fluidFimbriaOvarian cancerPathologyEndocrinologyGene expressionGeneGeneticsMedicineAnatomyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Recently described precursors of high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), the p53 signature, a latent precursor, and Serous Tubal Intraepithelial Carcinoma (STIC), a pre-malignant precursor, occur most frequently at the distal and fimbriated end of the fallopian tube (FTE). In 3 previous reports, we have demonstrated that the FTE of BRCA1 mutation carriers, at genetic risk of HGSC, have altered signaling pathways compared to controls. Ovarian production of ROS is released after the LH surge to induce ovulation. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) have been implicated in serous carcinogenesis. The objective of this study is to compare the transcriptome profiles of normal fimbria (high-risk epithelia prone to transformation) FTE and normal ampulla (low-risk epithelia) FTE which may lead to understanding the distal end of the fallopian tube as the preferential anatomic location of the fallopian to tube for cellular transformation. Method: Snap-frozen matched fimbria and ampulla tissues were controlled for age and ovarian cycle status. Cases included 12 luteal phase and 12 follicular phase women at no known risk for ovarian cancer. Laser capture microscopy was used to microdissect FTE cells, using 7-10 sections per case. Total RNA was isolated, RNA extracted and cDNA amplified. The expression profiles were generated using Affymetrix Human Genome HTA-2.0 Array. Results: Using gene level differential expression analysis with the Affymetrix Expression Console software, we performed unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis with all 24 samples. We used a fold change of < -2 or > 2 and ANOVA p-value < 0.05 as a cut-off criteria for selecting genes. The cases clustered predominantly by ovarian cycle status rather than by their differences in anatomical origin or their matched pair. There were 427 genes differentially expressed amongst the 4 groups– Fim-Luteal, Fim-Follicular, FT-Luteal and FT-Follicular. Independent of ovarian cycle status, very few differences (35 genes– SALL1, ME1– higher in the ampulla; GSTA1, GSTA2, SERPINA3-higher in the fimbria– genes involved in metabolic pathways) were observed between the ampulla and fimbria FTE. Conclusions: The epithelia of the anatomically high-risk fallopian tube– the fimbria, show few differences in gene expression profiles compared to the lower risk portion– the ampulla. Expression differences predominantly are in response to the hormonal milieu, post-ovulation with an antioxidant program The increased anatomic risk of the fimbria is likely due to effects of the microenvironment, such as repeated exposure to follicular fluid at ovulation (higher ROS) and antioxidant genes and their interaction with DNA repair genes (like TP53), rather than intrinsic differences of the FTE in the two sites. Citation Format: Sophia H. George, Anca Milea, Noor Hera Salman, Patricia Ann Shaw. Differential transcription profile of epithelia in fimbria versus the ampulla of the fallopian tube. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 106th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2015 Apr 18-22; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(15 Suppl):Abstract nr 2080. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2015-2080

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment→French-language works237,207→