Patterns of Oncogene Coexpression at Single-Cell Resolution Influence Survival in Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancers often overexpress multiple clinically relevant oncogenes, but it is not known if combinations of oncogenes in cellular subpopulations within a cancer influence clinical outcomes. Using quantitative multispectral imaging of the prognostically relevant oncogenes MYC, BCL2, and BCL6 in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), we show that the percentage of cells with a unique combination MYC+BCL2+BCL6- (M+2+6-) consistently predicts survival across four independent cohorts (n = 449), an effect not observed with other combinations including M+2+6+. We show that the M+2+6- percentage can be mathematically derived from quantitative measurements of the individual oncogenes and correlates with survival in IHC (n = 316) and gene expression (n = 2,521) datasets. Comparative bulk/single-cell transcriptomic analyses of DLBCL samples and MYC/BCL2/BCL6-transformed primary B cells identify molecular features, including cyclin D2 and PI3K/AKT as candidate regulators of M+2+6- unfavorable biology. Similar analyses evaluating oncogenic combinations at single-cell resolution in other cancers may facilitate an understanding of cancer evolution and therapy resistance. SIGNIFICANCE: Using single-cell-resolved multiplexed imaging, we show that selected subpopulations of cells expressing specific combinations of oncogenes influence clinical outcomes in lymphoma. We describe a probabilistic metric for the estimation of cellular oncogenic coexpression from IHC or bulk transcriptomes, with possible implications for prognostication and therapeutic target discovery in cancer. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1027.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".