Cited by 36Glioma Diagnosis and TreatmentGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesCancer Genomics and Diagnostics

GSVD Comparison of Patient-Matched Normal and Tumor aCGH Profiles Reveals Global Copy-Number Alterations Predicting Glioblastoma Multiforme Survival

Open access
Lee, Cheng H., Alpert, Benjamin O., Sankaranarayanan, Preethi, Alter, Orly·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Despite recent large-scale profiling efforts, the best prognostic predictor of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) remains the patient's age at diagnosis. We describe a global pattern of tumor-exclusive co-occurring copy-number alterations (CNAs) that is correlated, possibly coordinated with GBM patients' survival and response to chemotherapy. The pattern is revealed by GSVD comparison of patient-matched but probe-independent GBM and normal aCGH datasets from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). We find that, first, the GSVD, formulated as a framework for comparatively modeling two composite datasets, removes from the pattern copy-number variations (CNVs) that occur in the normal human genome (e.g., female-specific X chromosome amplification) and experimental variations (e.g., in tissue batch, genomic center, hybridization date and scanner), without a-priori knowledge of these variations. Second, the pattern includes most known GBM-associated changes in chromosome numbers and focal CNAs, as well as several previously unreported CNAs in >3% of the patients. These include the biochemically putative drug target, cell cycle-regulated serine/threonine kinase-encoding TLK2, the cyclin E1-encoding CCNE1, and the Rb-binding histone demethylase-encoding KDM5A. Third, the pattern provides a better prognostic predictor than the chromosome numbers or any one focal CNA that it identifies, suggesting that the GBM survival phenotype is an outcome of its global genotype. The pattern is independent of age, and combined with age, makes a better predictor than age alone. GSVD comparison of matched profiles of a larger set of TCGA patients, inclusive of the initial set, confirms the global pattern. GSVD classification of the GBM profiles of an independent set of patients validates the prognostic contribution of the pattern.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0030098

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Signatures unique to the cancer had a strong signal for genes duplicated in the cancer, suggesting that identified profiles reflect the oncogenic events in the genome.

    “Both of these studies demonstrated that signatures unique to the cancer had a strong signal for genes duplicated in the cancer [137, 138], as is common in cancers, suggesting that identified profiles reflect the oncogenic events in the genome.”
  • GSVD was shown to identify patterns unique to glioblastoma multiforme, which was useful for prognostic purposes.

    “GSVD was shown to identify patterns unique to glioblastoma multiforme, a type of brain tumour, which was useful for prognostic purposes [137].”

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
Lee, C. H., Alpert, B. O., Sankaranarayanan, P., & Alter, O.
Affiliations
University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Alter, Orly
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-01-23
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
e30098
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2037680425
Cited by
36
References
42
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (CAREER, 0847173)
  • Utah Science Technology and Research
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG004302)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Genetics › Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Keywords
glioblastoma, copy number alterations, prognostic factors, patient survival, array comparative genomic hybridization, TLK2, cyclin E1, KDM5A, chemotherapy response, TCGA
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Brain Neoplasms, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Glioblastoma, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Cluster Analysis, Survival Analysis, Case-Control Studies, Matched-Pair Analysis, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Validation Studies as Topic, Comparative Genomic Hybridization, DNA Copy Number Variations

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