Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33926541›Full record

ArticleGenome medicine2021

Evaluating the transcriptional fidelity of cancer models.

Da Peng, Rachel Gleyzer, Wen-Hsin Tai, Pavithra Kumar, Qin Bian, Bradley Isaacs, Edroaldo Lummertz da Rocha, Stephanie Cai, Kathleen DiNapoli, Franklin W Huang and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Da Peng *Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Rachel Gleyzer *Institute for Cell Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Wen-Hsin TaiInstitute for Cell Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Pavithra KumarDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Qin BianDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Bradley IsaacsInstitute for Cell Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Edroaldo Lummertz da RochaDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology and Parasitology, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil.
Stephanie CaiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Kathleen DiNapoliDepartment of Cell Biology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Franklin W HuangDivision of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine; Helen Diller Family Cancer Center; Bakar Computational Health Sciences Institute; Institute for Human Genetics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Patrick CahanDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. patrick.cahan@jhmi.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3652-2540

Funding

SPORE in Ovarian CancerP50CA228991 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI FIONA SIMPKINS · 2018 to 2026
$20.5M
Research on Prostate Cancer in Men of African Ancestry: Defining the Roles of Genetics, Immunity and Stress (RESPOND)U19CA214253 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI HAIMAN, CHRISTOPHER ALAN · 2018 to 2023
$16.8M
Precision Interception of Aggressive Prostate Cancer in African American MenP20CA233255 · NCI · DANA-FARBER CANCER INST · PI REBBECK, TIMOTHY R · 2018 to 2020
$3.2M
NCI NIH HHS P20 CA233255NCI NIH HHS P50 CA228991NCI NIH HHS U19 CA214253
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer researchers use cell lines, patient-derived xenografts, engineered mice, and tumoroids as models to investigate tumor biology and to identify therapies. The generalizability and power of a model derive from the fidelity with which it represents the tumor type under investigation; however, the extent to which this is true is often unclear. The preponderance of models and the ability to readily generate new ones has created a demand for tools that can measure the extent and ways in which cancer models resemble or diverge from native tumors.

methodsWe developed a machine learning-based computational tool, CancerCellNet, that measures the similarity of cancer models to 22 naturally occurring tumor types and 36 subtypes, in a platform and species agnostic manner. We applied this tool to 657 cancer cell lines, 415 patient-derived xenografts, 26 distinct genetically engineered mouse models, and 131 tumoroids. We validated CancerCellNet by application to independent data, and we tested several predictions with immunofluorescence.

resultsWe have documented the cancer models with the greatest transcriptional fidelity to natural tumors, we have identified cancers underserved by adequate models, and we have found models with annotations that do not match their classification. By comparing models across modalities, we report that, on average, genetically engineered mice and tumoroids have higher transcriptional fidelity than patient-derived xenografts and cell lines in four out of five tumor types. However, several patient-derived xenografts and tumoroids have classification scores that are on par with native tumors, highlighting both their potential as faithful model classes and their heterogeneity.

conclusionsCancerCellNet enables the rapid assessment of transcriptional fidelity of tumor models. We have made CancerCellNet available as a freely downloadable R package ( https://github.com/pcahan1/cancerCellNet ) and as a web application ( http://www.cahanlab.org/resources/cancerCellNet_web ) that can be applied to new cancer models that allows for direct comparison to the cancer models evaluated here.

Indexed as

Transcription, GeneticAnimalsCell Line, TumorDisease Models, AnimalGenetic EngineeringHumansNeoplasmsOrganoidsSpecies SpecificityXenograft Model Antitumor AssaysCancer cell linesCancer modelsGEMMMachine learningPDXTumor classificationTumoroid

Identifiers

PMID33926541
PMCPMC8086312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.