DNA barcoded competitive clone-initiating cell analysis reveals novel features of metastatic growth in a cancer xenograft model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A problematic feature of many human cancers is a lack of understanding of mechanisms controlling organ-specific patterns of metastasis, despite recent progress in identifying many mutations and transcriptional programs shown to confer this potential. To address this gap, we developed a methodology that enables different aspects of the metastatic process to be comprehensively characterized at a clonal resolution. Our approach exploits the application of a computational pipeline to analyze and visualize clonal data obtained from transplant experiments in which a cellular DNA barcoding strategy is used to distinguish the separate clonal contributions of two or more competing cell populations. To illustrate the power of this methodology, we demonstrate its ability to discriminate the metastatic behavior in immunodeficient mice of a well-established human metastatic cancer cell line and its co-transplanted LRRC15 knockdown derivative. We also show how the use of machine learning to quantify clone-initiating cell (CIC) numbers and their subsequent metastatic progeny generated in different sites can reveal previously unknown relationships between different cellular genotypes and their initial sites of implantation with their subsequent respective dissemination patterns. These findings underscore the potential of such combined genomic and computational methodologies to identify new clonally-relevant drivers of site-specific patterns of 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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".