MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract A189: Identification of antibody-drug conjugate targets using curated public data, in-house glycoproteomics, and a surrogate in vitro ADC assay

2018· article· en· W2787641076 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer J. Hill, François Fauteux, Tammy‐Lynn Tremblay, María Jaramillo

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Therapeutics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCancer researchPopulationCancerComputational biologyMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are a promising approach for cancer therapy, combining the specificity of an antibody with the potency of small-molecule toxins. To identify cellular targets for the development of new ADCs, we have set out to identify proteins that (1) are expressed on the cell surface; (2) have high specificity for tumors, with relatively low expression on normal tissues; and (3) can internalize into the tumor cell by a mechanism that enables the delivery and activation of sufficient amounts of toxin to kill cancer cells. Here at the NRC, we have built a pipeline to identify new ADC targets, incorporating public gene expression data mining and glycoproteomic profiling, followed by in vitro screening through a surrogate ADC assay. Public data enable the analysis of large numbers of human tumors and normal tissues, providing a population-based estimate of gene expression. Through curation of the Gene Expression Omnibus, we have built a microarray database that contains >26,000 tumor samples and >8,800 normal samples, all on the Affymetrix HGU133 Plus 2.0 platform. We have also collected RNA-seq data for >5,000 normal samples from the GTEx database, and 6,900 tumor samples from The Cancer Genome Atlas. These samples cover a broad range of tissues: blood, bone marrow, brain, breast, colon, heart, kidney, liver, lung, muscle, ovary, pancreas, prostate, skin, stomach, and uterus. To identify candidates for ADC development, we first classify tumors into subtypes through consensus clustering followed by a Monte Carlo implementation of our iterative ensemble classification methods. Next, we perform differential gene expression analysis between normal tissues and known or novel cancer subtypes. In one example, we have identified 50 breast cancer targets, 7 of which have already been developed as ADCs to the clinical trial stage by others, demonstrating the validity and promise of this approach (Fauteux et al., 2016). Glycoproteomics data are typically derived from small numbers of samples, making a population-based analysis less informative. Therefore, we have integrated glycoproteomic data into our target selection pipeline in two ways. First, glycoproteomics has been used to profile the cell surface of 11 tumor cell lines. Using an approach with high specificity for cell-surface glycoproteins, over 200 cell-surface proteins have been identified for each cell line. This data enables the selection of targets that are amenable to our in vitro functional assay for ADC activity, based on expression in our screen-adapted cell lines. Glycoproteomics has also been used to identify and prioritize targets upregulated during hypoxia or epithelial-mesenchymal transition, two important aspects of tumor biology. For example, cellular glycoproteins from four pancreatic cell lines were profiled under normoxic and hypoxic conditions, identifying >70 proteins upregulated under hypoxic conditions. These glycoproteomic datasets, in conjunction with the public data analysis, are being used to identify promising ADC targets. Based on these target selection methods, we are currently producing and screening thousands of NRC monoclonal and single-domain antibodies generated against a variety of cancer-associated cell surface targets and screening them for ADC activity, in vitro and in vivo. Citation Format: Jennifer J. Hill, François Fauteux, Tammy-Lynn Tremblay, Maria Jaramillo. Identification of antibody-drug conjugate targets using curated public data, in-house glycoproteomics, and a surrogate in vitro ADC assay [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC International Conference: Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2017 Oct 26-30; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2018;17(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A189.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.006

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.311 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer TherapeuticsSame topicMonoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies ResearchFrench-language works237,207