MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411349405 · doi:10.1002/hon.70093_56

56 | GENOMIC ANALYSIS OF MATURE B‐CELL LYMPHOMAS

2025· article· en· W4411349405 on OpenAlexaff
Kostiantyn Dreval, Margarito Martínez Cruz, Laura K. Hilton, Haya Shaalan, Meme Wijesinghe, Fabian Frontzek, Prasath Pararajalingam, Ciara L. Freeman, A. Lytle, Pedro Farinha, Waleed Alduaij, Susana Ben‐Neriah, M. Boyle, Barbara Meissner, Christopher Rushton, Jasper Wong, H. L. Mirhosseneini, Valeria Souza, S Gillis, Nicole Thomas, Qamar Qureshi, Krysta M. Coyle, Andrew P. Weng, L. Laurie, Christian Steidl, David W. Scott, Ryan D. Morin

Bibliographic record

VenueHematological Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsTerry Fox Research InstituteSpinal Cord Injury BCSimon Fraser UniversityGenome British Columbia
FundersCelgeneGilead Sciences
KeywordsB cellCancer researchComputational biologyBiologyGeneticsMedicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

K. Dreval, M. Cruz, and L. K. Hilton equally contributing authors. Introduction: The B-cell lymphomas represent a genetically heterogeneous and complex collection of malignancies. Among diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), Burkitt lymphoma (BL) and follicular lymphoma (FL), over 140 recurrently mutated genes have been established. Subdivisions of these pathologies into molecular or genetic subgroups with distinct biological features is of interest but it remains unclear whether genome-wide analyses have identified a sufficient number of relevant genetic features. To search for additional drivers and refine our understanding of common mutation patterns across the mature B-cell lymphomas, we performed a comprehensive meta-analysis of all available published and locally generated whole genome sequencing (WGS) and exome data. Methods: Sequencing data was assembled from a total of 2603 DLBCL, 784 FL, 433 BL, 202 MCL, 213 CLL and 808 cases spanning other mature B-cell lymphoma pathologies. This includes WGS and exome data from 1992 and 3051 samples, respectively. All WGS and exome data was analyzed for somatic mutations and structural variants using LCR-modules, our suite of open-source pipelines. RNA-seq data, available from 1837 cases, was analyzed for gene expression, alternative splicing and detecting oncogene rearrangements. Significantly-mutated genes (SMGs) were identified using a combination of MutSigCV, OncodriveFML and dNdSCV. Non-coding loci enriched for mutations were comprehensively identified using FishHook. Results: Using a pooled analysis of all DLBCL, BL and FL samples with paired normals, we identified 133 SMGs. Of these genes, 106 were among previously reported high confidence SMGs, with the remaining 27 not previously attributed to these pathologies. The mutation incidence among these new genes was low (median: 2.46), as expected. Notable examples are genes with potential roles in chromatin remodeling (ARID1B, INO80), immune evasion (FCGR2B), DNA damage response (RBM38), and BCR signaling (CD79A). While most of the novel genes were more commonly mutated in DLBCL, CDKN2C and FIP1L1 mutations were more abundant in BL. Despite the volume of data, this analysis did not reproduce 37 of the genes that have previously been attributed to at least one of these entities. Most of these represent targets of aSHM, such as BTG1, CIITA and ACTG1, which may be enriched for passenger mutations. Recurrence analysis identified a total of 105 mutation hotspots in 66 genes. This also recovered additional genes with significant hotspots that were not globally significant, including TLR2, BCOR, BCR and MEF2C. We found 130 non-coding loci that were enriched for mutations, with most regions having the highest mutation burden in DLBCL. Conclusions: Genomic Analysis of Mature B-cell Lymphomas (GAMBL) analysis has extended the list of lymphoma genes to 170 and has revealed the existence of mutation hotspots in more than a third of these genes and many non-coding loci with regulatory potential. Keywords: bioinformatics; computational and systems biology; genomics, epigenomics, and other -omics; aggressive B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma No potential sources of conflict of interest.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.809

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematological OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207