4.6 Article

Model to improve specificity for identification of clinically-relevant expanded T cells in peripheral blood

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 14, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213684

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Current methods to quantify T-cell clonal expansion only account for variance due to random sampling from a highly diverse repertoire space. We propose a beta-binomial model to incorporate time-dependent variance into the assessment of differentially abundant T-cell clones, identified by unique T Cell Receptor (TCR) beta-chain rearrangements, and show that this model improves specificity for detecting clinically relevant clonal expansion. Using blood samples from ten healthy donors, we modeled the variance of T-cell clones within each subject over time and calibrated the dispersion parameters of the beta distribution to fit this variance. As a validation, we compared pre-versus post-treatment blood samples from urothelial cancer patients treated with atezolizumab, where clonal expansion (quantified by the earlier binomial model) was previously reported to correlate with benefit. The beta-binomial model significantly reduced the false-positive rate for detecting differentially abundant clones over time compared to the earlier binomial method. In the urothelial cancer cohort, the beta-binomial model enriched for tumor infiltrating lymphocytes among the clones detected as expanding in the peripheral blood in response to therapy compared to the binomial model and improved the overall correlation with clinical benefit. Incorporating timedependent variance into the statistical framework for measuring differentially abundant Tcell clones improves the model's specificity for T-cells that correlate more strongly with the disease and treatment setting of-interest. Reducing background-level clonal expansion, therefore, improves the quality of clonal expansion as a biomarker for assessing the T cell immune response and correlations with clinical measures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据