MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The lipid metabolome of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC).

2012· article· en· W2604750780 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Saby George, Kyoung‐Soo Choi, Роберто Пили, A. Latif Kazim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClear cell renal cell carcinomaLipidomicsKidney cancerMetabolomicsRenal cell carcinomaMedicineLiquid chromatography–mass spectrometryMetabolomeFalse discovery rateMass spectrometryClear cellCancer researchChromatographyInternal medicineChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

10609 Background: The commonest type of kidney cancer is CCRCC. Treatment approaches mostly target aberrant vasculature. However, kidney cancer is also known to accumulate lipids and a detailed knowledge of the lipid species present in these tumors could lead to a better understanding of the underlying aberrant metabolic pathways and suggest possible treatment strategies. Lipidomics is an emerging field driven by rapid advances in mass spectrometry (MS), and is widely used to discover biomarkers. We attempt to identify the lipidomic profile of CCRCC using a liquid chromatography MS-based approach (LC-MS). Methods: We utilized 6 fresh frozen representative samples of CCRCC and matching non-tumor areas of kidney from nephrectomy samples. Lipids and other non-polar cellular constituents were extracted from both CCRCC and control tissues by methyl-t-butyl ether /methanol. LC-MS based lipid profiling was performed on a Waters Q-ToF Premier MS coupled with Ultra Performance LC. The peak detection and alignment across all chromatograms were performed using the XCMS software (v 1.14.1, Scripps Center for Metabolomics). Statistical comparisons of the intensities of aligned peaks were performed using the XCMS-built-in Welch's t-test. Results: The outcome of XCMS was converted to a table that contains fold change, p-value and mass to charge ratio (m/z) for each peak, its corresponding retention time, and the integrated peak intensities from all samples. 224 peaks out of 1419 differed between CCRCC and the control group, with p <0.05, calculated by XCMS. About an equal number of analytes increased or decreased in CCRCC compared with control samples. Preliminary attempts to identify the analytes included use of METLIN (Scripps Center for Metabolomics) and HMDB (Human metabolome database, Genome Alberta & Genome Canada) databases. Many of the hits identified phosphatidylcholines, phosphatidylethanolamines, triacylglycerols and diacylglycerols, as well as other lipid species. Conclusions: The lipid metabolomic profile varied significantly between CCRCC and control. Further studies are required to confirm the identities of the lipid species contributing to this variation by obtaining structural information using tandem MS (LC-MS/MS).

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.326 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207