Tumor neoantigens derived from RNA editing events show significant clinical relevance in melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the clinical significance of RNA editing (RE) and RNA editing derived (RED-) neoantigens in melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy. Vardict and VEP were used to identify the somatic mutations. RE events were identified by Reditools2 and filtered by the custom pipeline. miRTar2GO was implemented to predict the RE whether located in miRNA targets within the 3' UTR region. NetMHCpan and NetCTLpan were used to identify and characterize RED-neoantigens. In total, 7116 RE events were identified, most of which were A-to-I events. Using our custom pipeline, 631 RED-neoantigens were identified that show a significantly greater peptide-MHC affinity, and facilitate epitope processing and presentation than wild-type peptides. The OS of the patients with high RED-neoantigens burden was significantly longer ( P = 0.035), and a significantly higher RED-neoantigens burden was observed in responders ( P = 0.048). The area under the curve of the RED-neoantigen was 0.831 of OS. Then, we validated the reliability of RED-neoantigens in predicting the prognosis in an independent cohort and found that patients with high RED-neoantigens exhibited a longer OS ( P = 0.008). To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically assess the clinical relevance of RED-neoantigens in melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".