MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract B020: Multimodal single-cell analyses reveal identification of unique transcriptional subgroups in ewing sarcoma

2022· article· en· W4295942218 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
April A. Apfelbaum, Olivia G. Waltner, Shruti S. Bhise, Sami B. Kanaan, Jay F. Sarthy, Scott N. Furlan, Elizabeth R. Lawlor

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscriptomeBiologyEpigenomicsCarcinogenesisComputational biologyGeneticsGeneRNA-SeqGene expressionGene expression profilingContext (archaeology)DNA methylation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ewing sarcoma (EwS) tumors are driven by pathognomonic fusions between FET proteins and ETS family transcription factors (most frequently EWS::FLI1). EWS::FLI1 drives tumorigenesis through massive transcriptomic and epigenomic rewiring. Despite mutational homogeneity, EwS are highly transcriptionally heterogeneous suggesting that cell context is a key determinant of EWS::FLI1-driven gene signatures. Fusion protein activity has been revealed as a core source of EwS heterogeneity. However, deep investigation into the transcriptomic and epigenomic heterogeneity of EwS cells has yet to be described. Molecular subtyping of EwS has thus far proven to be difficult to achieve with bulk RNA-sequencing approaches. We hypothesized that single-cell characterization of EwS cells would provide the necessary resolution to allow identification and characterization of transcriptionally distinct tumor subgroups. We subjected eight established EwS cell lines, one PDX-derived EwS line, and five non-EwS cell lines to single-cell multiomic (ATAC + RNA) sequencing. A range of 1300-3800 live cells were captured per sample, with an average of 25,000 transcript and accessible reads per cell. Initial analysis of transcriptomes confirmed the EwS-specific, EWS::FLI1-dependent signature gene sets in EwS samples. Integrated analysis of the multiome data from the 9 EwS samples identified inter-tumor heterogeneity and unsupervised k-means clustering revealed three molecular subgroups that were not evident from expression data alone. Subgroup 1 comprised only the A673 cell line, while the remaining 8 EwS samples were split between subgroups 2 and 3. Gene ontology analysis defined enrichment of distinct gene sets across the 3 subgroups. Interestingly, expression of subgroup 2-defining genes was reduced following knockdown of EWSR1::FLI1, while expression of subgroup 3-defining genes increased. Thus, these data show that transcriptionally distinct subgroups of EwS exist and these are defined, in part, by whether EWS::FLI1-dependent gene activation or gene repression dominates transcriptional rewiring. Our ongoing studies suggest that these molecular subgroups are defined by cooperation between the fusion and cell context-dependent transcription factors. Future analyses will determine if these distinct multiomic programs exist in primary patients tumors and test the pathobiologic and clinical significance of these novel molecular subgroups. Citation Format: April A. Apfelbaum, Olivia Waltner, Shruti S. Bhise, Sami Kanaan, Jay F. Sarthy, Scott N. Furlan, Elizabeth R. Lawlor. Multimodal single-cell analyses reveal identification of unique transcriptional subgroups in ewing sarcoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Sarcomas; 2022 May 9-12; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2022;28(18_Suppl):Abstract nr B020.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.392
GPT teacher head0.531
Teacher spread0.140 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer Research→Same topicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→