MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cell-free methylated DNA (cfMeDNA) immunoprecipitation and high throughput sequencing technology (cfMeDIP-seq) in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

2019· article· en· W2947651192 on OpenAlexaff
Pier Vitale Nuzzo, Sándor Spisák, Ankur Chakravarthy, Shu Yi Shen, Jacob E. Berchuck, Amin H. Nassar, Sarah Abou Alaiwi, John A. Steinharter, Ziad Bakouny, Francesco Boccardo, Guru Sonpavde, Gwo‐Shu Mary Lee, Steven L. Chang, Mark M. Pomerantz, Daniel D. De Carvalho, Matthew L. Freedman, Toni K. Choueiri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClear cell renal cell carcinomaDNA methylationCancer researchMethylationMedicineCpG siteRenal cell carcinomaComputational biologyEpigenomicsBiologyOncologyDNAGeneGeneticsGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3052 Background: CfmeDNA is a promising biomarker for non-invasive assessment of solid tumors: i) MeDNA is tissue- and tumor-specific ii) cfDNA methylation changes are stable unlike DNA alterations iii) ‘methylation target size’ is larger than identifying specific genomic alterations and, therefore, more sensitive. CfMeDIP-seq is a sensitive assay for genome-wide bisulfite-free cfMeDNA profiling, that requires 1-10 ng input DNA. We tested the feasibility of cfMeDIP-seq to detect ccRCC across TNM stages. Methods: We evaluated plasma cfDNA collected prior to nephrectomy in 46 pts with ccRCC: 25 stage I, 7 stage II, 6 stage III, 8 stage IV. cfMeDIP-seq involves four steps: 1) cfDNA end-repair, A-tailing, and adapter ligation 2) cfMeDNA immunoprecipitation and enrichment using an Ab targeting 5-methylcytosine (quality control by qPCR to ensure <1% of unMeDNA and >99% reaction specificity) 3) adapter-mediated PCR to amplify cfMeDNA 4) high-throughput NGS for cfMeDNA data. A previously-derived model (Shen et al, Nature, 2018) was used to classify pts as having ccRCC or not based on cfMeDNA. cfMeDIP-seq paired end data was reduced to 300 bp windows of the genome that map to CpG islands, shores, shelves, and FANTOM5 enhancers; a classifier was then built using the top 1,000 most variable fragments between pts with ccRCC and cancer-free controls. Statistical comparisons were performed in the R statistical environment, with the caret package being used for classifier construction and evaluation. Results: The average amount of cfDNA isolated from 1 ml of ccRCC plasma was 19.8±39.8 ng/µL [1.95-260]. Greater than 99% specificity of reaction and <1% of unMeDNA was achieved in 46/46 samples (100%). The previously-derived classifier of ccRCC correctly predicted 46/46 pts (100%) as having ccRCC. Across 3 rounds of 5-fold cross-validation, the classifier performed with a Cohen’s Kappa of 0.93. Conclusions: CfMeDIP-seq is a non-invasive, cost-effective, and sensitive assay to detect cancer-specific cfmeDNA in ccRCC pts prior to nephrectomy. With further validation, cfmeDNA may detect minimal residual disease after nephrectomy for ‘precision’ adjuvant therapy.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.288 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation→French-language works237,207→