MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3047853280 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.pedca19-a24

Abstract A24: Identifying BRCAness in osteosarcoma with DNA-methylation profiling and gene expression signatures

2020· article· en· W3047853280 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maxim Barenboim, Michal Kováč, Baptiste Ameline, David Jones, Olaf Witt, Stefan Bielack, Stefan Burdach, Daniel Baumhoer, Michaela Nathrath

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoss of heterozygosityBiologySynthetic lethalityDNA methylationGenome instabilityGeneticsCancer researchGeneMolecular biologyAlleleDNAGene expressionDNA repairDNA damage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BRCAness is a phenotypical trait resembling tumors with germline BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation and homologous recombination deficiency (HRD). Recently, osteosarcoma (OS), which is the most common primary malignant bone tumor, was shown to frequently present molecular features resembling BRCAness. The inability of the HR pathway to keep the genome integrity leads to its instability, resulting in copy number variations and loss of heterozygosity. Tumors characterized by BRCAness might have an increased sensitivity to poly ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors, which leads to synthetic lethality through tumor cell apoptosis. There are several genomic methods to assess BRCAness such as calculating the HRD score based on large genomic rearrangements. We developed a new approach based on DNA-methylation patterns and gene expression signatures. Low-coverage whole-genome (lcWGS) data, DNA-methylation, and RNA-Seq data of 41 patients with relapsed OS were obtained within the scope of the INdividualized Therapy FOr Relapsed Malignancies in Childhood (INFORM) project. Percentage of genome changed (PGC) by large state transitions and telomeric allele imbalance was computed with Nexus CN (BioDiscovery, Inc) and open source Control-FREEC/HRDtools from lcWGS and used for BRCAness scoring. llumina Human Methylation450k and EPIC arrays were used to determine DNA methylation profiles. We selected 18 BRCA-positive and 12 BRCA-negative samples based on the PGC to train the classifier algorithm Random Forest (RF) (R-project) and set aside 11 samples as a test set. Probes were ranked according to minimum variability within groups and maximum between groups. The top 1,000 probes were selected for RF training. The importance of probes was assessed as a mean decrease in accuracy (MDA). Probes with zero MDA were removed from training set. RNA-seq differential expression analysis was performed with DESeq2. Expression signatures were extracted by gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA). Training samples were clustered unambiguously into BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative groups with unsupervised hierarchical clustering of 1,000 probes. All 11 test samples set aside before RF training were accurately classified. Excluding noninformative probes reduced the number of informative probes to 628 and correctly clustered them into two groups. Differential expression analysis of BRCA positive and negative RNA-Seq samples resulted in 1,458 differentially expressed genes. Only upregulated genes in BRCA-positive samples showed highly significant homologous recombination, nucleotide excision, and mismatch repair signatures in GSEA. We established and validated a DNA methylation-based classifier that differentiates BRCA-negative and BRCA-positive OS samples with high accuracy. The differential expression and enrichment analyses identified genome instability signatures. Our method complements existing genomic BRCAness scoring and brings new epigenomic/trancriptomic dimensions into the computational prediction of BRCAness. Citation Format: Maxim Barenboim, Michal Kovac, Baptiste Ameline, David T.W. Jones, Olaf Witt, Stefan Bielack, Stefan Burdach, Daniel Baumhoer, Michaela Nathrath. Identifying BRCAness in osteosarcoma with DNA-methylation profiling and gene expression signatures [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on the Advances in Pediatric Cancer Research; 2019 Sep 17-20; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(14 Suppl):Abstract nr A24.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.001

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→