MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740620121 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2017-3799

Abstract 3799: Technical validation of a micro-flow cytometry platform for prostate cancer biomarker discovery

2017· article· en· W2740620121 on OpenAlexaff
Desmond Pink, Robert J. Paproski, Deborah Sosnowski, Lian Willetts, Eric Hyndman, John D. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicExtracellular vesicles in disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarker discoveryProstate cancerBiomarkerFlow cytometryPopulationExtracellular vesiclesCytometryReproducibilityCancerMedicineChemistryChromatographyBiologyImmunologyInternal medicineProteomicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The analysis of extracellular vesicles (EVs) in biofluids is an expanding area of biomarker discovery. To be effective, a diagnostic test must differentiate EVs originating from cancer cells versus non-cancerous origins, and also define biomarkers enriched in cancer EVs. Our team has developed a micro-flow cytometry platform using the Apogee A50 to analyze prostate cancer (PCa) EVs in different biofluids. While flow cytometry is powerful tool for quantitative and qualitative evaluation of cellular biomarkers, direct translation of most applications to EVs is challenging. For example, EVs in biofluids typically range in size from 50-1000nm, and are present as low refractive index, polydisperse populations. We have optimized 30 assay parameters for the identification of prostate specific EVs so that disease specific biomarkers may be evaluated. To illustrate the sensitivity of the system, conditioned media from palmitoylated-GFP-LNCaP cells was used as a positive signal sample. When spiked into increasing concentrations of unstained plasma EVs, the GFP spike was detected linearly, even when present as low as 0.03% of the total EV population. Furthermore, the rate of positive signal/uL sample was quantitative after 15-30 seconds of sample analysis. The platform also permits high throughput analysis using a 96 well plate autosampler. To show sample reproducibility, we analyzed both low and high positive-signal samples over an 8hr sampling window. Low positive samples (120events/uL; 0.1% of total EVs) had a 4% CV over 96 samples whereas the high positive signal samples (2300events/uL, 1.0% of total EVs) had a 2.2% CV. Similar CVs have been obtained with CD9 and CD63. Analysis of sample aliquots over multiple days shows less than 6% CV. Conventional flow cytometers acquire tens of thousands of events while the Apogee system is able to collect millions of events with several parameters/event, in a high throughput manner. This generates a significant amount of data for which we have designed a unique machine learning approach to detect specific EV populations within the whole sample. In this manner, we utilize all data from the sample and not simply a subjectively defined area of interest. Using fresh samples from the clinic we have standardized a 2hr arm-freezer protocol for the collection and preservation of serum and plasma. Comparison studies in LNCaps and PC3 cells of 5 antibodies against PSMA, indicated the J591 anti-PSMA monoclonal antibody as a selective marker for prostate cancer EVs. Positive signal for this antibody was linearly titrated in both a LNCaP EV system and plasma EVs from metastatic prostate cancer patients. Specificity was shown by saturating a plasma system with unconjugated J591 and then reacting with PE-conjugated J591. Using the A50 micro-flow cytometry platform, the J591 antibody to identify prostate specific EVs, and a unique machine learning algorithm, we identified a multiple biomarker, diagnostic signature for PCa. Citation Format: Desmond Pink, Robert Paproski, Deborah Sosnowski, Lian Willetts, Eric Hyndman, John D. Lewis. Technical validation of a micro-flow cytometry platform for prostate cancer biomarker discovery [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3799. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-3799

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicExtracellular vesicles in diseaseFrench-language works237,207