EPEN-28. NOVEL TARGET IDENTIFICATION IN RECURRENT POSTERIOR FOSSA EPENDYMOMA GROUP A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Posterior fossa ependymoma group A (PF-EPN-A) are an aggressive subgroup of ependymal tumors which occur predominantly in infants and possess a poor prognosis. Treatment is limited to surgical resection and adjuvant radiation with no approved chemotherapies or targeted therapies available. Despite treatment efforts, nearly half of all PF-EPN-A cases will experience tumor recurrence within a decade of initial diagnosis. Our current understanding of relapse is limited to clinical risk stratification based on subtotal resection of the primary tumor, male sex and specific chromosomal copy number aberrations. In an effort to overcome the shortcomings of current literature on PF-EPN-A recurrence, we present a concerted effort to investigate the biology of both recurrent human tissue specimens and patient-derived cell models to identify novel drivers of recurrence. METHODS Utilizing a multi-omics approach, we have conducted transcriptomic (bulk RNA-Seq), proteomic and phosphoproteomic (LC-MS/MS) analyses in order to identify molecular pathways that are enriched in recurrent disease as compared to primaries. We have also performed genome-wide CRISPR essentiality screens to further pinpoint essential genes and pathways with therapeutic potential. RESULTS Through the comparison of primary and recurrent PF-EPN-A samples, we have identified both previously implicated and novel genes and pathways in recurrent disease. Our multi-omic analyses identified the upregulation of genes involved in DNA repair, DNA damage response and cell cycle pathways in recurrent PF-EPN-A. CONCLUSIONS Our combined approach has enabled the identification of novel targets with therapeutic potential in the treatment of recurrent PF-EPN-A. The identified targets will be validated using a combination of drug screening and knockdown approaches in vitro. Top candidates will be further validated in vivo with established recurrent xenograft mouse models. PF-EPN-A is an aggressive disease with limited treatment options and the identification of novel targets with potential therapeutic utility will allow us to better treat this patient population.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".