MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Assessment of Microrna Expression in Mantle Cell Lymphoma Using High Throughput Techniques

2008· article· en· W2593116899 on OpenAlexaff
Rashmi S. Goswami, Nilva K. Cervigne, Patrícia P. Reis, Mahadeo A. Sukhai, John Kuruvilla, Michael Crump, Denis Bailey, Suzanne Kamel‐Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMantle cell lymphomamicroRNAFollicular lymphomaBlastoidLymphomaBiologyCancer researchPopulationGene expressionGene expression profilingPathologyGeneMedicineImmunologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) accounts for 3–10% of all lymphomas and demonstrates a poor clinical response to current therapeutic approaches, with a median survival of 3–5 years. The natural history of MCL is heterogeneous and not well-defined by standard clinical markers as patients may die within months of diagnosis or experience long-term survival. There remains a need for reliable biomarkers of MCL prognosis. To date, global gene expression signatures have not been determined for formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) MCL samples due to difficulties isolating full-length mRNA transcripts from FFPE tissues. Examining microRNA expression in FFPE samples may circumvent this problem, as this population of RNAs remains intact during processing of FFPE samples. MicroRNAs (miRs) are small, non-coding RNAs, which regulate gene expression by inhibiting mRNA translation. Although miR expression signatures have been derived for other hematological malignancies, assessment of miR expression in patients with MCL has yet to be undertaken. We hypothesize that different pathological subtypes of MCL have unique miR expression signatures, distinct from miR expression profiles of other B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Our objectives were two-fold: To determine and validate miR expression in different pathological subtypes of MCL; and, To compare miR expression in MCL to other B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Total RNA was extracted from FFPE samples [17 conventional MCL, 11 blastoid MCL, 4 follicular lymphomas (Grades 1, 2, 3a, and 3b), 1 nodal marginal zone lymphoma, 1 small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL/CLL) and 3 benign, reactive lymph nodes (normal controls)] using the RecoverAll kit for FFPE tissues (Ambion). RNA was subjected to quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) for 365 miRs and 3 endogenous control small nucleolar RNAs to obtain miR expression profiles using the TaqMan Low Density Array (TLDA) v1.0 platform (MicroFluidic card, Applied Biosystems). TLDAs were run on the ABI7900 HT analyzer with TLDA upgrade and analysed with RQ Manager software provided by Applied Biosystems. Expression profiles were correlated to pathological subtype, and hierarchical clustering, principal component analysis (PCA), and ANOVA were performed using Partek software [Partek Genomics Suite for Gene Expression Data]. Results indicate that miR expression profiles differ between B-cell, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and MCL samples. Clustering analysis and PCA both demonstrated different profiles between MCL and B-cell, non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Although PCA did not demonstrate significant differences between the conventional and blastoid MCL samples, a set of fifteen miRs may be able to distinguish these two groups of MCL, since these 15 miRs are relatively upregulated in blastoid MCL in comparison to conventional MCL. In addition, PCA revealed five (3 conventional MCL samples and 2 blastoid samples), which did not cluster with their respective groups. These five samples were from patients known to have progressive disease, indicating that such patients may have different miR expression profiles compared to patients with non-progressive disease. We conclude that high-throughput miR expression profiles can be generated from FFPE samples in B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas and that miR expression profiles for MCL samples differ from those of other B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas. Blastoid and conventional MCL samples may not have significantly differing profiles, however a set of 15 miRs appears to be able to distinguish between these two groups. Of note, samples from patients with known progressive disease have significantly different profiles from those with non-progressive disease.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→