Lgr5 and stem/progenitor gene expression in gastric/gastroesophageal junction carcinoma – significance of potentially retained stemness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinomas are heterogeneous, comprising four molecularly distinct subtypes, namely EBV-positive, microsatellite instability (MSI), chromosomal instability (CIN) and genomically stable (GS) subtypes, and a part of this heterogeneity may hypothesized to be different cells-of-origin. Stem/progenitor cell hierarchy in the stomach is complex, which include the Lgr5 (+) gastric stem cells (GSCs). Methods While previous studies have focused on non-nuclear Lgr5 expression, nuclear Lgr5 expression has been reported in a subset of stem cells, and we examined nuclear Lgr5 expression in a local cohort of 95 cases of gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma. mRNA levels for LGR5 and other stem cell marker genes were examined in the TCGA cohort. Results We observed nuclear Lgr5 expression in a 18/95 cases. Near mutual exclusivity was seen between nuclear Lgr5 and strong non-nuclear Lgr5. Both strong non-nuclear and nuclear Lgr5 expression tended to be seen more frequently with the intestinal histotype and approximated CIN molecular subtype. With respect to overall survival (OS), nuclear Lgr5 expression appears to be protective, with the worst survival being seen in the cases lacking nuclear Lgr5 and with low non-nuclear Lgr5 expression. When compared to other stem/progenitor cell markers, LGR5 mRNA expression clusters with other GSC marker genes, including VIL1 . Higher expression of these GSC marker genes was associated with better OS. Conclusions Our results show that Lgr5 expression is dynamic in gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma and heterogeneous across the several disease attributes. We postulate that this may reflect “retained stemness” in the form of Lgr5 High -GSC signature that appears to be associated with better survival.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".