MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388589009 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noad179.1201

MODL-50. CLONAL EXPANSION OF SPONTANEOUS AND INJECTED TUMORS IN SYNGENEIC MOUSE MODELS OF GLIOBLASTOMA

2023· article· en· W4388589009 on OpenAlexaff
Courtney F Hall, Joanna Pyczek, Bo Young Ahn, Jennifer A. Chan, A. Sorana Morrissy

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySomatic cellTranscriptomeElectroporationCancer researchPopulationGeneGeneticsGene expressionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION Glioblastoma (GBM) tumors are highly heterogenous and plastic. To better understand how tumors respond to treatment, it is important to use immunocompetent mouse models. We've created various mouse GBM models with common genetic mutations found in different subtypes of GBM, including classical, proneural, mesenchymal, and BRAF-driven. METHODS Using a combination of CRISPR and PiggyBac Transposon constructs, we injected plasmid mixtures into the ventricles of the mouse brain during the post-natal period. Electroporation was then used to enable the plasmids to enter nearby neural stem cells, which led to the spontaneous formation of tumors (spontaneous model). We collected tumor cells from these models and injected them into the adult mouse brain to create the injected mouse GBM model. Here we use spatial and single cell transcriptome profiling approaches to characterize these models at endpoint. Spatial transcriptome data was collected using the Visium 10X platform and tumor spots were deconvoluted from non-malignant spots using consensus non-negative matrix factorization. Copy number alterations (CNAs) were inferred using non-malignant spots and single-cell clusters as a reference. RESULTS We found that copy number states are largely homogenous within each sample, supporting an early population expansion in vivo. CNAs found in spontaneous tumors are also found in the matched injected tumors, which in turn harbour additional CNAs, suggesting that further selection occurs in vitro. Some of the CNAs include relevant cancer genes, suggesting the observed clonal expansions are potentially driven by additional somatic alterations that cooperate with the engineered driver mutations. Studying these models using orthogonal methods will allow us to discover alterations that synergize with the original drivers and delineate principles of GBM initiation and progression in an immune-competent environment.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207