MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414465472 · doi:10.1158/2326-6074.cimm25-a006

Abstract A006: Assessment of EBV DNA methylation to guide antiviral use in EBV-associated lymphoma

2025· article· en· W4414465472 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Noël, Christoph Weigel, Haley Klimaszewski, Ada C. Sher, Kurits M. Host, Yue-Zhong Wu, Sarah Schlotter, Elshafa H. Ahmed, Eric Brooks, Christopher C. Oakes, James S. Blachly, Mark Lustberg, Timothy Voorhees, Robert A. Baiocchi

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Immunology Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral-associated cancers and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA methylationLytic cycleMethylationCpG siteBiomarkerLymphomaEpstein–Barr virus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction/Objective: Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) is an oncogenic herpesvirus driving development of human lymphomas. EBV uses DNA methylation to silence its genome and switch from a lytic (actively replicating) to a latent (dormant) state. Clinical treatment decisions for EBV-associated (EBV+) lymphomas are limited by current diagnostics which provide no information on EBV’s activation state, despite this playing an important role in lymphoma pathogenesis. The antiviral ganciclovir (GCV) is effective specifically against lytic EBV due to viral BGLF4 expression, a kinase that activates GCV. The Baiocchi group discovered that BGLF4 expression in otherwise latent EBV+CNS lymphomas was associated with favorable outcomes when patients received GCV-containing treatment regimen GARD. This indicated improved EBV+ lymphoma outcomes with GCV, yet we cannot determine which patients will benefit. We hypothesized that DNA methylation loss at BGLF4 indicates its expression and is associated with GCV response, serving as a potential DNA biomarker to determine which patients are suitable GCV candidates. Methods: We established a high-throughput PCR and mass spectrometry assay quantifying methylation of n=12 CpG sites at the BGLF4 promoter. The assay was validated against the EpiTYPER methylation assay (R^2=0.766), methylation standards, and the limit of detection was determined to be 625 copies/reaction. We assessed n=136 EBV+ patient plasma samples from a cross-sectional study cohort including EBV-reactivations, post-transplant lymphoproliferation (PTLD), B-, T- and NK-cell lymphomas. Methylation was analyzed with unsupervised clustering and overlaid with in vitro luciferase reporter data for respective BGLF4 DNA elements. Retrospective chart review was performed to determine GCV use and response association with BGLF4 methylation. Results: We identified n=4 CpG sites within BLGF4 that are heterogeneously methylated among samples and highlight the BGLF4 core promoter. Preliminary analysis showed that across disease groups, patients who responded to GCV had a significantly lower BGLF4 methylation (p=0.0007) than patients who did not respond to GCV. Comparatively, we saw no significant difference in BGLF4 methylation of rituximab responders versus non-responders (p=0.343). These results suggest BGLF4 demethylation may indicate lytic EBV activity and thus response to GCV. Conclusions/Significance: Site specific BGLF4 methylation loss is widespread in EBV+ lymphoma. Administration of GCV, a drug that has already been well studied and is FDA-approved, may be guided by EBV methylation, serving as a biomarker to improve patient outcomes in EBV-driven lymphomas. Citation Format: Cara M. Noel, Christoph Weigel, Haley LT. Klimaszewski, Ada C. Sher, Kurits M. Host, Yue-Zhong Wu, Sarah Y. Schlotter, Elshafa H. Ahmed, Eric Brooks, Christopher C. Oakes, James S. Blachly, Mark Lustberg, Timothy Voorhees, Robert A. Baiocchi. Assessment of EBV DNA methylation to guide antiviral use in EBV-associated lymphoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Mechanisms of Cancer Immunity and Cancer-related Autoimmunity; 2025 Sep 24-27; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Immunol Res 2025;13(9 Suppl):Abstract nr A006.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.382 · 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 venueCancer Immunology ResearchSame topicViral-associated cancers and disordersFrench-language works237,207