MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Chromatin modifications on plasma ctDNA as a tool to phenotype castration-resistant prostate cancer.

2024· article· en· W4391302789 on OpenAlexafffund
Aslı D. Munzur, Joonatan Sipola, Clara C. Y. Seo, Edmond M. Kwan, Karan Parekh, Cecily Q. Bernales, Gráinne Donnellan, Ingrid Bloise, Gillian Vandekerkhove, Matti Annala, Corinne Maurice Dror, Kim N., Cameron Herberts, David Y. Takeda, Alexander W. Wyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchProstate Cancer Foundation
KeywordsEpigenomicsProstate cancerMedicineLiquid biopsyCancer researchDNA methylationCell-free fetal DNAPhenotypeOncologyCancerInternal medicineBiologyGeneGeneticsGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

214 Background: Existing clinical ctDNA assays focus on mutations and copy number changes but may incompletely inform tumor biology. Epigenomic modifications influence mCRPC cell phenotype, and are implicated in treatment resistance and emergence of neuroendocrine prostate cancer (NEPC). Intriguingly, plasma cell-free DNA (cfDNA) can be bound to histones retaining cell-of-origin posttranslational modifications—and can be characterized via chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing (cfChIP-seq)—potentially simplifying routine tumor epigenomic profiling. Here, we tested the potential for cfChIP-seq to clinically stratify mCRPC. Methods: We analyzed 63 cfDNA samples from 33 pre-treated mCRPC patients (pts) and 19 controls. Pts were selected to represent varied clinical phenotypes, including location and burden of metastases (defined via assessment of bone scintigraphy and computed tomography imaging) and evidence of biopsy-confirmed NEPC. To enhance cfChIP-seq tumor specificity, samples were also pre-selected to include those with high ctDNA fraction (ctDNA%). cfDNA was subjected to H3K4me2 (canonically marking active gene promoters and enhancers) cfChIP-seq plus simultaneous deep targeted sequencing (including matched white blood cells) to inform on driver genotypes. Results: Median age at first cfDNA collection was 69.5 (IQR: 65-72). Prior to first cfDNA collection, 47% of pts had received ≥1 line of AR-targeted therapy and 17% had received ≥1 line of taxane chemotherapy. 51% of pts had >10 bone lesions, 20% had liver, 15% had lung, and 58% had bone metastases without visceral involvement. Frequent TP53 (61% of pts), RB1 (18%), and PTEN (19%; homozygous deletion only) disruption mirrored clinically aggressive disease. Promoter H3K4me2 counts in established (PC) genes (e.g. KLK3, HOXB13) were markedly higher in ctDNA-positive samples than in ctDNA-negative and healthy controls. Conversely, ctDNA-negative samples had comparatively elevated promoter H3K4me2 counts in neutrophil- and leukocyte-related gene sets reflecting the hematopoietic origin of most non-tumor cfDNA. Leveraging a public pan-cancer ATAC-seq atlas, H3K4me2 density was highest in PC-specific open chromatin regions relative to other cancers. H3K4me2 was enriched at AR transcription-factor binding sites except in pts with NEPC. High burden of liver metastases correlated with elevated promoter H3K4me2 counts in liver-associated genes. Finally, KLK3 (encodes prostate specific antigen [PSA]) promoter H3K4me2 count was strongly correlated with time-matched serum PSA (p<0.01) independent of ctDNA%. Conclusions: cfChIP-seq captures mCRPC-specific epigenomic features, indicating a new opportunity for minimally invasive disease phenotyping. cfChIP-seq may augment conventional ctDNA profiling for discovery of predictive and prognostic biomarkers and detection of treatment resistance.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.369 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→