MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4393095901 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-1451

Abstract 1451: Replication repair deficient mouse models provide insights into gliomagenesis and response to immunotherapy

2024· article· en· W4393095901 on OpenAlexaff
Zoya Aamir, Melissa A. Galati, Emma Gattoni, Owen Crump, Nuno M. Nunes, Anirban Das, Nicholas Fernandez, Angel K. Wong, Jérôme Fortin, Lucie Stengs, Vanessa Bianchi, Melissa Edwards, Logine Negm, Cynthia Hawkins, David Malkin, Sean E. Egan, Uri Tabori

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicroRNA in disease regulation
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunotherapyReplication (statistics)Cancer researchMedicineCancer immunotherapyBiologyImmunologyImmune systemVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Replication Repair Deficiency (RRD), caused by germline monoallelic (Lynch Syndrome) or biallelic (Constitutional Mismatch Repair Deficiency, CMMRD) mutations in MMR genes, is present in 5-10% of glioblastomas in children, adolescents, and young adults. RRD glioblastomas are chemoradiation-resistant, but respond favorably to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). Representative immunocompetent animal models are urgently needed for 3 recently identified subgroups based on specific somatically-acquired mutations, survival, and immunotherapy response (RRD1: MMRD with POLE mutations, RRD2: MMRD associated with TP53 mutations, and RRD3: MMRD harboring IDH1 mutations). Methods: Using germline mutations and brain-specific Cre-drivers, we genetically engineered mouse models that recapitulate each human RRD-subgroup. Results: All mouse models robustly developed brain tumors displaying phenotypic variation. RRD1 (Nestin- and Olig2-Cre+/Msh2LoxP/LoxP/PoleS459F/+ and LSL-PoleP286R/+): CMMRD-like Nestin-Cre-driven mice develop posterior-fossa glioma-like or embryonal (EB)-like tumors at ~2.7 months. Olig2-Cre-driven mice display hemispheric gliomas at ~10 months, suggesting distinct cell-of-origin. RRD2 (Nestin-Cre+/Trp53LoxP/LoxP and Msh2LoxP/LoxP or Mlh1−/−): tumors develop primarily in the hindbrain in germline Mlh1 mice, and majority arise in the forebrain of Nestin-Cre/Msh2 mice, highlighting the timeline of mutagenesis. Strikingly, germline Mlh1 tumors occur earlier than Nestin-Cre-driven RRD2 tumors, indicating early developmental mutation accumulation in CMMRD-patients. Lynch-like RRD1/2 mice succumb exclusively to gliomas >13 months (p<0.0001). RRD3 (Olig2-Cre+/Msh2LoxP/LoxP/Trp53LoxP/LoxP/LSL-Idh1R132H/+): mice succumb to brain tumors at >11 months and are hemispheric. Significance: These observations recapitulate human data, where CMMRD-patients develop glioblastoma/EB earlier than Lynch-patients (8.6 vs. 14-years; p<0.0001), and posterior-fossa glioblastoma/EB presents earlier than hemispheric gliomas (p=0.04). Additionally, tumor onset and location vary by subgroup (RRD1: 7.6-years, RRD2: 8.3-years, both hemispheric/posterior-fossa; RRD3: 12-years, hemispheric; p=0.005). In both mice and humans, RRD1 exhibits ultra-hypermutation, high immune infiltration, and response to ICI, whereas RRD2 harbors lower mutational burden, are immune-cold, and ICI-monotherapy resistant. Temporal dynamics of RRD tumor development is currently being tracked by serial MRI to define previously undetermined biologically relevant time points of tumor progression. Conclusion: Our models accurately mimic the human condition and provide unique insights into RRD tumorigenesis, allowing optimization of subgroup-tailored therapeutic approaches. Citation Format: Zoya Aamir, Melissa Galati, Emma Gattoni, Owen Crump, Nuno M. Nunes, Anirban Das, Nicholas Fernandez, Nicholas Fernandez, Angel K. Wong, Jerome Fortin, Lucie Stengs, Vanessa Bianchi, Melissa Edwards, Logine Negm, Cynthia Hawkins, David Malkin, Sean Egan, Uri Tabori. Replication repair deficient mouse models provide insights into gliomagenesis and response to immunotherapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 1451.

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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.336 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicMicroRNA in disease regulation→French-language works237,207→