Pathway-Enriched Gene Signature Associated with 53BP1 Response to PARP Inhibition in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Effective treatment of patients with triple-negative (ER-negative, PR-negative, HER2-negative) breast cancer remains a challenge. Although PARP inhibitors are being evaluated in clinical trials, biomarkers are needed to identify patients who will most benefit from anti-PARP therapy. We determined the responses of three PARP inhibitors (veliparib, olaparib, and talazoparib) in a panel of eight triple-negative breast cancer cell lines. Therapeutic responses and cellular phenotypes were elucidated using high-content imaging and quantitative immunofluorescence to assess markers of DNA damage (53BP1) and apoptosis (cleaved PARP). We determined the pharmacodynamic changes as percentage of cells positive for 53BP1, mean number of 53BP1 foci per cell, and percentage of cells positive for cleaved PARP. Inspired by traditional dose–response measures of cell viability, an EC50 value was calculated for each cellular phenotype and each PARP inhibitor. The EC50 values for both 53BP1 metrics strongly correlated with IC50 values for each PARP inhibitor. Pathway enrichment analysis identified a set of DNA repair and cell cycle–associated genes that were associated with 53BP1 response following PARP inhibition. The overall accuracy of our 63 gene set in predicting response to olaparib in seven breast cancer patient-derived xenograft tumors was 86%. In triple-negative breast cancer patients who had not received anti-PARP therapy, the predicted response rate of our gene signature was 45%. These results indicate that 53BP1 is a biomarker of response to anti-PARP therapy in the laboratory, and our DNA damage response gene signature may be used to identify patients who are most likely to respond to PARP inhibition. Mol Cancer Ther; 16(12); 2892–901. ©2017 AACR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".