MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592672980 · doi:10.1158/1557-3265.pdx16-b32

Abstract B32: Fidelity of genomic and proteomic features of patient-derived xenografts of lung cancers

2016· article· en· W2592672980 on OpenAlexaff
Nhu‐An Pham, Dennis Wang, Jiefei Tong, Chang‐Qi Zhu, Lei Li, Wen Zhang, Ruoshi Shi, Shingo Sakashita, Melania Pintilie, Michael F. Moran, Geoffrey Liu, Ming‐Sound Tsao

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscriptomeCancer researchBiologyLung cancerCancerGeneProteomeExome sequencingExomePathologyMedicineGene expressionMutationBioinformaticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The establishment of valid lung carcinoma preclinical models for testing new cancer therapies is necessary, as existing cell lines and mouse models may not recapitulate the full spectrum of heterogeneity of patient tumors. Studies suggest lung cancer patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models recapitulate well gene copy number variation, gene expression profiles, and metabolic states of corresponding patient tumors. However, an understanding of mechanisms linking cancer-associated genome, transcriptome, and proteome alterations with driver mutations and dysregulated signal transduction networks in primary and PDX models is lacking. We report a large (>150) resource of lung cancer PDX models, derived from surgically resected tumors, and endobronchial ultrasound-guided (EBUS) and CT-guided biopsies. Tumor specimens were grown and serially passaged in the subcutaneous pocket at the flanks of NSG mice (NOD SCID gamma) at initial implant, and following passages in NOD SCID (non-obese diabetic severe combined immunodeficiency) mice. Among 127 established PDX models from 441 surgically derived tumor specimens, all major histological subtypes were included: 52 adenocarcinomas, 62 squamous cell carcinomas, 1 adeno-squamous cell carcinomas, 5 sarcomatoid carcinomas, 5 large cell neuroendocrine carcinomas, and 2 small cell lung cancers. Over 100 PDX models have been profiled by next-generation exome sequencing (SureSelect Human 50Mbp kit), and array-based assays for copy number variant (HumanOmni 2.5-Quad BeadChip), DNA methylation (Infinium HumanMethylation450 BeadChip) and mRNA (DASL HumanHT-12 v4 BeadChip) profiles. Smaller subsets of PDXs have been characterized by mass spectrometry (MS)-based comprehensive proteome and protein-phosphotyrosine characterization. Genome/transcriptome/proteome profiles of 36 non-small cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC) PDX models correlated with patient primary tumors but to a much lesser extent with established NSCLC cell lines. A number of PDX models have genetic abnormalities linked to targeted therapies including mutations in EGFR (6), PIK3CA (13), and KRAS (21), and amplifications in FGFR1 (7) and CDK4 (6). This study provides the most solid evidence as yet that PDXs established from lung cancers mimic closely the genomic and proteomic characteristics of patient primary tumors and retain driver genetic abnormalities. Citation Format: Nhu-An Pham, Dennis Wang, Jiefei Tong, Chang-Qi Zhu, Lei Li, Wen Zhang, Ruoshi Shi, Shingo Sakashita, Melania Pintilie, Michael F. Moran, Geoffrey Liu, Ming-Sound Tsao. Fidelity of genomic and proteomic features of patient-derived xenografts of lung cancers. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Patient-Derived Cancer Models: Present and Future Applications from Basic Science to the Clinic; Feb 11-14, 2016; New Orleans, LA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2016;22(16_Suppl):Abstract nr B32.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.368 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207