Cited by 2,194Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchGene expression and cancer classificationBreast Cancer Treatment Studies

Virtual microdissection identifies distinct tumor- and stroma-specific subtypes of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Open access
Moffitt, Richard A, Marayati, Raoud, Flate, Elizabeth L, Volmar, Keith E, Loeza, S Gabriela Herrera, Hoadley, Katherine A, Rashid, Naim U, Williams, Lindsay A +10 more·2015·Nature Genetics

Abstract

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) remains a lethal disease with a 5-year survival rate of 4%. A key hallmark of PDAC is extensive stromal involvement, which makes capturing precise tumor-specific molecular information difficult. Here we have overcome this problem by applying blind source separation to a diverse collection of PDAC gene expression microarray data, including data from primary tumor, metastatic and normal samples. By digitally separating tumor, stromal and normal gene expression, we have identified and validated two tumor subtypes, including a 'basal-like' subtype that has worse outcome and is molecularly similar to basal tumors in bladder and breast cancers. Furthermore, we define 'normal' and 'activated' stromal subtypes, which are independently prognostic. Our results provide new insights into the molecular composition of PDAC, which may be used to tailor therapies or provide decision support in a clinical setting where the choice and timing of therapies are critical.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ng.3398

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Moffitt and colleagues used a virtual dissection strategy to computationally subtract stromal and immune transcriptional background from bulk RNA sequencing and identified classical and basal-like tumor subtypes plus normal and activated stromal subtypes.

    “Moffit and colleagues devised a “virtual dissection strategy” to computationally subtract the transcriptional background imposed by stromal and immune cells from bulk-RNA sequencing signatures131. Using this approach, they identified two subtypes of PDAC tumors, termed “classical” and “basal-like”, in addition to two stromal subtypes termed “normal stroma” and “activated stroma”.”

    From Pancreatic cancer: Advances and challenges (2023) · cites this paper as [131]

  • The dichotomous Moffitt classification schema of "basal-like" and "classical" subtypes was initially established using bulk RNA sequencing strategies applied to human tumor samples.

    “The dichotomous Moffitt classification schema of “basal-like” and “classical” subtypes was initially established using bulk RNA sequencing strategies applied to human tumor samples (Moffitt 2015)36.”
  • The dichotomous Moffitt classification schema of "basal-like" and "classical" subtypes was initially established using bulk RNA sequencing strategies applied to human tumor samples.

    “The dichotomous Moffitt classification schema of “basal-like” and “classical” subtypes was initially established using bulk RNA sequencing strategies applied to human tumor samples (Moffitt 2015)36.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moffitt, R. A., Marayati, R., Flate, E. L., Volmar, K. E., Loeza, S. G. H., Hoadley, K. A., Rashid, N. U., Williams, L. A., Eaton, S. C., Chung, A. H., Smyla, J. K., Anderson, J. M., Kim, H. J., Bentrem, D. J., Talamonti, M. S., Iacobuzio-Donahue, C. A., Hollingsworth, M. A., & Yeh, J. J.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Yeh, Jen Jen
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2015-09-07
Volume
47
Issue
10
Pages
1168-1178
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W1497915798
Cited by
2,194
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 227 · 2025: 237 · 2024: 236 · 2023: 252 · 2022: 256 · 2021: 298 · 2020: 223 · 2019: 168 · 2018: 124 · 2017: 96 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 9
FWCI
42.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (T32CA009156, R01CA140424, P30CA060553)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30-DK034897, P30DK034987)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P30ES010126)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene expression and cancer classification
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Breast Cancer Treatment Studies
Keywords
pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, tumor stroma, tumor subtypes, gene expression signatures, blind source separation, basal-like subtype, prognostic subtypes, metastatic pancreatic cancer, molecular classification
MeSH terms
Adenocarcinoma, Animals, Female, Humans, Male, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Gene Expression, Stromal Cells, Genetic Heterogeneity, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, Heterografts

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review