MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908337540 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-119974

Comparison of the Transcriptomic Signature of Pediatric Vs. Adult CML and Normal Bone Marrow Stem Cells

2018· article· en· W2908337540 on OpenAlexaff
Hee‐Don Chae, Lara Murphy Jones, Michele Donato, Alex G. Lee, E. Alejandro Sweet‐Cordero, Parveen Abidi, Henrique Bittencourt, Norman J. Lacayo, Gary V. Dahl, Catherine Aftandilian, Kara L. Davis, Min Huang, Nathan Sumarsono, Michele S. Redell, Cecilia Fu, I-Ming L. Chen, Todd A. Alonzo, Elizabeth A. Eklund, Jason Gotlib, Purvesh Khatri, Nobuko Hijiya, Kathleen M. Sakamoto

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBone marrowStem cellCD34ImatinibImatinib mesylatePediatric cancerMyeloid leukemiaHematopoietic stem cell transplantationMyeloidTransplantationImmunologyInternal medicineOncologyCancerBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Pediatric chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) accounts for 10 to 15% of children with myeloid leukemia and 2 to 9% of all pediatric leukemias. Prior to the discovery of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) such as imatinib, stem cell transplantation was the only curative treatment for both adults and children with CML. However, due to the small numbers of patients, standardized treatment approaches for pediatric CML have not been established. There are several unique characteristics of CML diagnosed in children and adolescents, and young adults (AYA; 16-29 years), compared to adults. Children and AYA with CML present with a higher white blood count and have larger spleens, higher peripheral blast counts, and lower hemoglobin levels, suggesting that the biology of pediatric CML is different than adult CML. In addition, potential side effects of TKIs unique to pediatric CML patients include impaired bone growth, fertility and immune function, however none have been extensively studied. We hypothesize that the differences in clinical presentation of pediatric CML patients are due to unique molecular characteristics that are absent in adult CML patients. To test this hypothesis, we studied the transcriptomic signature of pediatric CD34+ CML cells compared to adult CML and normal age-matched bone marrow CD34+ cells. Methods CD34+ cells were isolated from pediatric CML (n=7), adult CML (n=8), pediatric normal (n=2) and adult normal (n=3) bone marrow samples. Total RNA was isolated from cells, and then cDNA libraries were generated. Prepared libraries were sequenced on the Illumina HiSeq 4000 instrument. We aligned reads using the HISAT2 alignment software, and mapped to genes with HT-Seq. We removed genes that had zero reads across all the samples, resulting in a set of 4,696 genes that were detected in one or more samples. In case of technical replicates, we used mean of replicates. We performed three differential expression comparisons with edgeR: (1) Pediatric CML vs Adult CML, (2) Adult CML vs Adult Normal, and (3) Pediatric CML vs Pediatric Normal. We used a False Discovery Rate (FDR) of £ 20% and absolute log2 fold-change ³ 1 for selecting differentially expressed genes in each comparison. We used Fisher's exact test to identify significant KEGG pathways for the differentially expressed genes in each comparison. Results Pediatric CML vs Adult CML We found 24 differentially expressed genes (15 over- and 9 under-expressed). Though no pathway was found to be significant at the false discovery rate (FDR) £ 20%, we identified a number of sub-pathways that are relevant. For example, the Chemokine Signaling pathway shows at the top of the list (ordered by raw p-value) because of two genes, XCR1 and HCK, associated with VEGF and MAPK pathways involved in cell proliferation, angiogenesis, DNA repair, and cancer pathogenesis. Adult CML vs Adult Normal We found 60 genes (30 over- and 30 under-expressed) differentially expressed when comparing adult CML patients to normal adults. Ten genes overlapped with 24 genes we identified when comparing pediatric and adult CML patients. We found 11 pathways as significant at FDR £ 10%. Multiple pathways, including Cell adhesion, allograft rejection, Graft versus Host Disease, and Type I diabetes pathways, showed downregulation of MHC, with subsequent downstream reduction in expression of apoptosis-related genes. The IL-17 pathway makes sense, as MAPK, well-known to be associated with various cancers, is down-regulated. Lastly, in the NK pathway the gene DAP12 is up-regulated. This gene is known as a tyrosine kinase binding protein, and although tyrosine kinase inhibitors are the standard treatment for CML, the role of DAP12 in relation to leukemia has not yet been described. Pediatric CML vs Pediatric Normal We found 509 genes (350 over- and 159 under-expressed) differentially expressed in pediatric CML patients compared to normal. Interestingly, transcriptional regulators are differentially enriched in the hematopoietic stem cell differentiation function group including GATA1, GATA2, KLF1 and KLF2. RFC is down-regulated. RFC is a mismatch repair gene known to be involved in colorectal cancer. Many of the significant pathways are involved in glucose and fatty acid metabolism. Our pilot study identified novel molecular features of pediatric CML bone marrow stem cells, providing new insights into the novel biomarkers and pathogenesis of pediatric CML. Disclosures Gotlib: Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Deciphera: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kartos: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207