Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34470661›Full record

SynthesisGenome medicine2021

Distinct transcriptional programs stratify ovarian cancer cell lines into the five major histological subtypes.

Bethany M Barnes, Louisa Nelson, Anthony Tighe, George J Burghel, I-Hsuan Lin, Sudha Desai, Joanne C McGrail, Robert D Morgan, Stephen S Taylor

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Genome medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Bethany M BarnesDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Oglesby Cancer Research Building, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4GJ, UK.
Louisa NelsonDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Oglesby Cancer Research Building, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4GJ, UK.
Anthony TigheDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Oglesby Cancer Research Building, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4GJ, UK.
George J BurghelManchester Centre for Genomic Medicine, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.
I-Hsuan LinBioinformatics Core Facility, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Michael Smith Building, Dover Street, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
Sudha DesaiDepartment of Histopathology, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4BX, UK.
Joanne C McGrailDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Oglesby Cancer Research Building, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4GJ, UK.
Robert D MorganDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Oglesby Cancer Research Building, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4GJ, UK.
Stephen S TaylorDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, Oglesby Cancer Research Building, 555 Wilmslow Road, Manchester, M20 4GJ, UK. stephen.taylor@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4621-9326

Funding

Cancer Research UK C1422/A19842Cancer Research UK C147/A25254Department of Health R120700/CAA070107
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpithelial ovarian cancer (OC) is a heterogenous disease consisting of five major histologically distinct subtypes: high-grade serous (HGSOC), low-grade serous (LGSOC), endometrioid (ENOC), clear cell (CCOC) and mucinous (MOC). Although HGSOC is the most prevalent subtype, representing 70-80% of cases, a 2013 landmark study by Domcke et al. found that the most frequently used OC cell lines are not molecularly representative of this subtype. This raises the question, if not HGSOC, from which subtype do these cell lines derive? Indeed, non-HGSOC subtypes often respond poorly to chemotherapy; therefore, representative models are imperative for developing new targeted therapeutics.

methodsNon-negative matrix factorisation (NMF) was applied to transcriptomic data from 44 OC cell lines in the Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia, assessing the quality of clustering into 2-10 groups. Epithelial OC subtypes were assigned to cell lines optimally clustered into five transcriptionally distinct classes, confirmed by integration with subtype-specific mutations. A transcriptional subtype classifier was then developed by trialling three machine learning algorithms using subtype-specific metagenes defined by NMF. The ability of classifiers to predict subtype was tested using RNA sequencing of a living biobank of patient-derived OC models.

resultsApplication of NMF optimally clustered the 44 cell lines into five transcriptionally distinct groups. Close inspection of orthogonal datasets revealed this five-cluster delineation corresponds to the five major OC subtypes. This NMF-based classification validates the Domcke et al. analysis, in identifying lines most representative of HGSOC, and additionally identifies models representing the four other subtypes. However, NMF of the cell lines into two clusters did not align with the dualistic model of OC and suggests this classification is an oversimplification. Subtype designation of patient-derived models by a random forest transcriptional classifier aligned with prior diagnosis in 76% of unambiguous cases. In cases where there was disagreement, this often indicated potential alternative diagnosis, supported by a review of histological, molecular and clinical features.

conclusionsThis robust classification informs the selection of the most appropriate models for all five histotypes. Following further refinement on larger training cohorts, the transcriptional classification may represent a useful tool to support the classification of new model systems of OC subtypes.

Indexed as

Cell Line, TumorGene Expression ProfilingGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticTranscriptomeAlgorithmsBenzyl AlcoholsComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticFemaleGenetic BackgroundHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMachine LearningMutationNeoplasm GradingOvarian NeoplasmsBenzyl AlcoholsfenipentolMachine learningNon-negative matrix factorizationOvarian cancerRNA sequencingSubtype classificationTranscriptomics

Identifiers

PMID34470661
PMCPMC8408985

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.