MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972521239 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2019.08.029

Tracing Tumor Evolution in Sarcoma Reveals Clonal Origin of Advanced Metastasis

2019· article· en· W2972521239 on OpenAlexaff
Yuning J. Tang, Jianguo Huang, Hidetoshi Tsushima, Ga I Ban, Hongyuan Zhang, Kristianne M. Oristian, Vijitha Puviindran, Nerissa T. Williams, Xiruo Ding, Jianhong Ou, Sin‐Ho Jung, Chang‐Lung Lee, Yiqun Jiao, Benny J. Chen, David G. Kirsch, Benjamin A. Alman

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyMetastasisclone (Java method)SarcomaCancer researchPrimary tumorSomatic evolution in cancerCancerGenePathologyGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cellular heterogeneity is frequently observed in cancer, but the biological significance of heterogeneous tumor clones is not well defined. Using multicolor reporters and CRISPR-Cas9 barcoding, we trace clonal dynamics in a mouse model of sarcoma. We show that primary tumor growth is associated with a reduction in clonal heterogeneity. Local recurrence of tumors following surgery or radiation therapy is driven by multiple clones. In contrast, advanced metastasis to the lungs is driven by clonal selection of a single metastatic clone (MC). Using RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) and in vivo assays, we identify candidate suppressors of metastasis, namely, Rasd1, Reck, and Aldh1a2. These genes are downregulated in MCs of the primary tumors prior to the formation of metastases. Overexpression of these suppressors of metastasis impair the ability of sarcoma cells to colonize the lungs. Overall, this study reveals clonal dynamics during each step of tumor progression, from initiation to growth, recurrence, and distant metastasis.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207