MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A comprehensive view of the structure and expression of the ependymoma genome at presentation and relapse

2009· article· en· W3081488978 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Wright, Vikki Rand, Sarah Leary, Stephen C. Mack, Beth Coyle, G. Yancey Gillespie, Jared Allen, Michael D. Taylor, Richard G. Grundy, Richard J. Gilbertson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGeneEpendymomamicroRNAComparative genomic hybridizationGene expressionGene expression profilingDNA microarrayFluorescence in situ hybridizationGeneticsCancer researchMicroarrayGenomePathologyMedicineChromosome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2073 Background: Although pediatric and adult ependymomas are associated with significant mortality and morbidity, little is known about the biology of these tumors. To identify underlying genetic alterations and cellular pathways that drive this disease, we conducted a genomic study of 200 adult and pediatric ependymomas. Methods: Using 500k single nucleotide polymorphism arrays, U133 Affymetrix gene and microRNA (miRNA) expression microarrays, and appropriate bioinformatics, we characterized 56 supratentorial (ST), 104 posterior fossa (PF), and 40 spinal (SP) ependymomas. Real-Time polymerase chain reaction and fluorescence in situ hybridization validated observed genetic events. Results: Gene expression profiles segregated tumors by site and identified disease subgroups within each anatomical region (4 ST, 4 PF, 1 SP). miRNA expression profiles identified these same subgroups, indicating that they are biologically distinct. Subgroup-specific gene expression profiles were dictated partly by developmental regulatory genes and partly by large chromosomal gains (eg. 1q, 5p, 16p) and losses (eg. 9p, 22q). Integrated genetic and expression mapping revealed key candidate tumor suppressor (TSG) and onco- genes, likely drivers of these large alterations. While large chromosomal changes occurred more frequently in SP tumors (p < 0.0001), ST tumors averaged more focal changes (n = 13.2) than PF (n = 6.2) or SP tumors (n = 3.0) (p < 0.0001). A total of 29 and 33 non-random focal amplifications and deletions, respectively, encompassing 402 known genes and miRNA clusters, were validated, of which 80 displayed copy number driven expression. These genetic alterations targeted specific cellular functions (e.g., cell adhesion, cell-cycle, neuronal development) and pathways (e.g., NOTCH, EPHRIN, TP53). Our cohort also included five sample sets consisting of primary tumor and at least two corresponding relapses. Genomic analysis of these tumors identified large chromosomal alterations as well as focal gains and losses associated with disease relapse. Conclusions: We present a highly comprehensive view of the ependymoma genome, including 80 previously unrecognized candidate TSG and oncogenes that may afford diagnostic and therapeutic targets. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.366 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research→French-language works237,207→