4.7 Article

Distinct T cell receptor repertoire diversity of clinically defined high-grade serous ovarian cancer treatment subgroups

期刊

ISCIENCE
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2021.102053

关键词

-

资金

  1. MD Anderson Ovarian Cancer Moon Shot
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [P50CA217685, R35CA209904, P30CA016672]
  3. MD Anderson Center for Translational and Public Health Genomics
  4. Andrew Sabin Family Fellowship
  5. GOG Foundation Scholar Investigator Award
  6. American Cancer Society Research Professor Award
  7. Frank McGraw Memorial Chair in Cancer Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found higher TCR diversity in the R0 group and lower diversity in the NACT group among patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Additionally, specific TCR beta gene enrichment and positive correlations between clonal relatedness and neoantigens, copy number variations, and mutation load were observed in the different groups.
In patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSC), it is unclear which genomic features are related to complete gross resection (R0), which is typically associated with better clinical outcomes, or response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). In this study, we evaluated T cell receptor (TCR) repertoire diversity in primary and metastatic tumor samples (n = 90) from clinically well-annotated patients with HGSC who achieved R0 or received NACT with excellent or poor response based on a laparoscopic triage algorithm. TCR sequencing followed by an integrative analysis with comprehensive multi-omics data identified higher TCR diversity (e.g., higher number of unique productive sequences and less clonal relatedness) in the R0 than NACT groups. We found enrichment of specific TCR beta genes usage, distinct mutual exclusiveness and co-occurrence pattern of TCR beta genes among the groups. We also found significantly positive correlations between clonal relatedness and neoantigens, copy number variations, and mutation load in the groups.

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

4.7
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