MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2897199048 · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-06747-4

RhoGAP domain-containing fusions and PPAPDC1A fusions are recurrent and prognostic in diffuse gastric cancer

2018· article· en· W2897199048 on OpenAlexaff
Hanna Yang, Dongwan Hong, Soo Young Cho, Young Soo Park, Woo Ri Ko, Ju Hee Kim, Hoon Hur, Jongkeun Lee, Su‐jin Kim, Sun Young Kwon, Jae-Hyuk Lee, Do Youn Park, Kyu Sang Song, Hee‐Kyung Chang, Min‐Hee Ryu, Kye Soo Cho, Jeong Won Kang, Myeong‐Cherl Kook, Nina Thiessen, Anyuan He, Sang‐Uk Han, Hark Kyun Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersChonnam National University Hwasun HospitalChungnam National University HospitalPusan National UniversityKosin UniversityDong-A UniversityChungnam National UniversityChonnam National University
KeywordsGeneCancerCDH1Ectopic expressionBiologyFusion geneCancer researchRNAFrameshift mutationGeneticsComputational biologyMutationCellCadherin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted an RNA sequencing study to identify novel gene fusions in 80 discovery dataset tumors collected from young patients with diffuse gastric cancer (DGC). Twenty-five in-frame fusions are associated with DGC, three of which (CLDN18-ARHGAP26, CTNND1-ARHGAP26, and ANXA2-MYO9A) are recurrent in 384 DGCs based on RT-PCR. All three fusions contain a RhoGAP domain in their 3' partner genes. Patients with one of these three fusions have a significantly worse prognosis than those without. Ectopic expression of CLDN18-ARHGAP26 promotes the migration and invasion capacities of DGC cells. Parallel targeted RNA sequencing analysis additionally identifies TACC2-PPAPDC1A as a recurrent and poor prognostic in-frame fusion. Overall, PPAPDC1A fusions and in-frame fusions containing a RhoGAP domain clearly define the aggressive subset (7.5%) of DGCs, and their prognostic impact is greater than, and independent of, chromosomal instability and CDH1 mutations. Our study may provide novel genomic insights guiding future strategies for managing DGCs.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations40
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicCholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207