Back

An atlas of causal and mechanistic drivers of interpatient heterogeneity in glioma

Turkarslan, S.; He, Y.; Hothi, P.; Murie, C.; Nicolas, A.; Kannan, K.; Park, J. H.; Pan, M.; Awawda, A.; Cole, Z.; Shapiro, M. A.; Stuhlmiller, T. J.; Lee, H.; Patel, A. P.; Cobbs, C.; Baliga, N. S.

2024-04-07 oncology
10.1101/2024.04.05.24305380 medRxiv
Show abstract

Grade IV glioma, formerly known as glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most aggressive and lethal type of brain tumor, and its treatment remains challenging in part due to extensive interpatient heterogeneity in disease driving mechanisms and lack of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. Using mechanistic inference of node-edge relationship (MINER), we have analyzed multiomics profiles from 516 patients and constructed an atlas of causal and mechanistic drivers of interpatient heterogeneity in GBM (gbmMINER). The atlas has delineated how 30 driver mutations act in a combinatorial scheme to causally influence a network of regulators (306 transcription factors and 73 miRNAs) of 179 transcriptional "programs", influencing disease progression in patients across 23 disease states. Through extensive testing on independent patient cohorts, we share evidence that a machine learning model trained on activity profiles of programs within gbmMINER significantly augments risk stratification, identifying patients who are super-responders to standard of care and those that would benefit from 2nd line treatments. In addition to providing mechanistic hypotheses regarding disease prognosis, the activity of programs containing targets of 2nd line treatments accurately predicted efficacy of 28 drugs in killing glioma stem-like cells from 43 patients. Our findings demonstrate that interpatient heterogeneity manifests from differential activities of transcriptional programs, providing actionable strategies for mechanistically characterizing GBM from a systems perspective and developing better prognostic and predictive biomarkers for personalized medicine.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.