MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2581869914 · doi:10.1182/blood.v110.11.396.396

Genomc-Wide Profiling of Gene Expression and DNA Copy Number Alterations in Multiple Myeloma.

2007· article· en· W2581869914 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan J. Keats, Mike Chapman, John D. Carpten, Wee Joo Chng, Angela Baker, Gregory Ahmann, Suzanne Trudel, David S. Siegel, S. Vincent Rajkumar, Melissa Alsina, Paul G. Richardson, Kenneth C. Anderson, Daniel Auclair, Louise M. Perkins, Jeffrey M. Trent, Todd R. Golub, Rafaël Fonseca

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComparative genomic hybridizationGenomicsComputational biologyCopy-number variationGene expression profilingBiologyGeneticsMultiple myelomaGeneCopy number analysisGenomeGene deletionGene expressionImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In an effort to identify novel genetic abnormalities in multiple myeloma (MM) we analyzed an initial set, as part of the Multiple Myeloma Research Consortium (MMRC) Genomics Initiative, of 94 MM patient samples on high-resolution array-based comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) and gene expression profiling (GEP) technologies. The MMRC Genomics Initiative is a three-year research program spanning a full-spectrum of genomic technologies with the goal of analyzing 250 MM patient samples by 2009. Raw data from the Initiative are released in near real time through the MMRC Multiple Myeloma Genomics Portal. This initial aCGH dataset from the Agilent 244K platform represents the highest resolution gene copy number analysis with corresponding GEP released to date in MM. It has confirmed the cytogenetic definitions of MM with the data set being split between patients with hyperdiploid and non-hyperdiploid MM. Furthermore, the 244K platform has helped to refine minimal regions of change present on 1p, 1q, 6q, 8p, 13q, 14q, and 16q. A comprehensive screen of the dataset for genes residing in regions of homozygous deletion identified 105 genes. The most commonly affected gene was CDKN2C(p18) (8.3%) while 12 other regions were recurrently targeted. Several of these regions were recently implicated in the pathogenesis of MM but the large majority represents novel observations. The aCGH and GEP data were integrated using two different programs developed by the core institutions (The Broad Institute of Harvard & MIT and Translational Genomics Research Institute). First, Genomic Identification of Significant Targets in Cancer (GISTIC), which identifies highly significant regions of change and a limited set of candidate genes within these regions, was used to identify 285 genes associated with DNA content alterations. Second, Breakpoint Expression Correlation (BEC), which identifies dysregulated genes on either side of a copy number alteration, was used to identify 194 genes with expression changes associated with a breakpoint. This latter gene list includes all known IgH translocation target genes identified to date in myeloma. Overlapping the gene lists generated by GISTIC, BEC, and the homozygous deletion screen identified a number of genes previously implicated in MM such as CDKN2C(p18), CYLD, BIRC2/BIRC3, and two novel genes, FAM46C and RNF6. Ongoing data integration with RNAi and high content sequencing projects of the current Initiative holds great promise in furthering our understanding of MM. The MMRC Genomics Initiative and resulting efforts from the myeloma research community will increase our understanding of MM at the molecular level, help to identify new targets, and ultimately lead to the development of better, more effective therapies for myeloma.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→