Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Commentary: preclinical efficacy of immune-checkpoint monotherapy does not recapitulate corresponding biomarkers-based clinical predictions in glioblastoma by Garg et al. (2017).

ABSTRACT: Preclinical modeling and gene expression analyses have yielded distinct observations for the role of immune checkpoint, IDO1, in glioblastoma (GBM). Accordingly, our recent work differs with Garg et al. (2017) with respect to IDO1 among preclinical and bioinformatic GBM datasets. Here, we discuss the methodological differences that affected study interpretation, and potentially, future clinical decision-making for IDO1-targeting approaches against GBM.

SUBMITTER: Zhai L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6350838 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Commentary: preclinical efficacy of immune-checkpoint monotherapy does not recapitulate corresponding biomarkers-based clinical predictions in glioblastoma by Garg et al. (2017).

Zhai Lijie L Ladomersky Erik E Lauing Kristen L KL Wu Meijing M Scholtens Denise M DM Savoor Rohan R Zhang Bin B Wu Jennifer D JD Horbinski Craig C Lukas Rimas V RV Binder David C DC Wainwright Derek A DA

Oncoimmunology 20181213 3

Preclinical modeling and gene expression analyses have yielded distinct observations for the role of immune checkpoint, IDO1, in glioblastoma (GBM). Accordingly, our recent work differs with Garg et al. (2017) with respect to IDO1 among preclinical and bioinformatic GBM datasets. Here, we discuss the methodological differences that affected study interpretation, and potentially, future clinical decision-making for IDO1-targeting approaches against GBM. ...[more]

PMID: 30723577

Similar Datasets

Preclinical efficacy of immune-checkpoint monotherapy does not recapitulate corresponding biomarkers-based clinical predictions in glioblastoma.

Project description:Glioblastoma (GBM) is resistant to most multimodal therapies. Clinical success of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has spurred interest in applying ICIs targeting CTLA4, PD1 or IDO1 against GBM. This amplifies the need to ascertain GBM's intrinsic susceptibility (or resistance) toward these ICIs, through clinical biomarkers that may also "guide and prioritize" preclinical testing. Here, we interrogated the TCGA and/or REMBRANDT human patient-cohorts to predict GBM's predisposition toward ICIs. We exploited various broad clinical biomarkers, including mutational or predicted-neoantigen burden, pre-existing or basal levels of tumor-infiltrating T lymphocytes (TILs), differential expression of immune-checkpoints within the tumor and their correlation with particular TILs/Treg-associated functional signature and prognostic impact of differential immune-checkpoint expression. Based on these analyses, we found that predictive biomarkers of ICI responsiveness exhibited inconsistent patterns in GBM patients, i.e., they either predicted ICI resistance (as compared with typical ICI-responsive cancer-types like melanoma, lung cancer or bladder cancer) or susceptibility to therapeutic targeting of CTLA4 or IDO1. On the other hand, our comprehensive literature meta-analysis and preclinical testing of ICIs using an orthotopic GL261-glioma mice model, indicated significant antitumor properties of anti-PD1 antibody, whereas blockade of IDO1 or CTLA4 either failed or provided very marginal advantage. These trends raise the need to better assess the applicability of ICIs and associated biomarkers for GBM.

| S-EPMC5414887 | biostudies-literature

Hi-C ES and neocortex from Bonev et al. 2017

Project description:Reanalysis of some Hi-C from Bonev et al. 2017 with HiCUP version 0.6.1

2020-11-12 | GSE161259 | GEO

Adamo et al. 2017

Project description:RNA extraction from decaying wood for (meta)transcriptomic analyses

| PRJEB21716 | ENA

Pragmatics for infants: commentary on Wenzel et al. (2020).

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC8170227 | biostudies-literature

Hi-C ES and neocortex from Bonev et al. 2017 on mm39

Project description:Reanalysis of some Hi-C from Bonev et al. 2017 with HiCUP v0.9.2

2023-04-06 | GSE229113 | GEO

Further evidence that psychopathology networks have limited replicability and utility: Response to Borsboom et al. (2017) and Steinley et al. (2017).

Project description:In our target article, we tested the replicability of 4 popular psychopathology network estimation methods that aim to reveal causal relationships among symptoms of mental illness. We started with the focal data set from the 2 foundational psychopathology network papers (i.e., the National Comorbidity Survey-Replication) and identified the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing as a close methodological match for comparison. We compared the psychopathology networks estimated in each data set-as well as in 10 sets of random split-halves within each data set-with the goal of quantifying the replicability of the network parameters as they are interpreted in the extant psychopathology network literature. We concluded that current psychopathology network methods have limited replicability both within and between samples and thus have limited utility. Here we respond to the 2 commentaries on our target article, concluding that the findings of Steinley, Hoffman, Brusco, and Sher (2017)-along with other recent developments in the literature-provide further conclusive evidence that psychopathology networks have poor replicability and utility. (PsycINFO Database Record

| S-EPMC5687847 | biostudies-literature

Comment on the publication of Amiryousefi et al. (2017).

Project description:This announcement describes corrections and comments to the paper entitled 'The plastid genome sequence of the invasive plant common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia, Asteraceae)' by A Amiryousefi, J Hyvönen, P Poczai.

| S-EPMC7800051 | biostudies-literature

Unheard voices: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on disordered eating in people with marginalized identities: Commentary on Devoe et al. (2022), Linardon et al. (2022) and Schneider et al. (2022).

Project description:Reviews by Devoe et al. (2022), Linardon et al. (2022), and Schneider et al. (2022) illustrate the profound impact the COVID-19 pandemic has had on people with eating disorders (EDs) or disordered eating (DE) and their families. However, there is a dearth of research on how the pandemic has affected individuals with marginalized identities, who have been historically underrepresented in ED/DE research. The few studies conducted to date suggest that people with marginalized identities, including people of color, LGBTQ + people, women, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, may have had even greater increases in EDs/DE than people without marginalized identities. In this Commentary, I discuss who is missing from research on EDs/DE during the COVID-19 pandemic, strategies for breaking down barriers to participation in research for diverse groups, and the implications of existing research findings for people with marginalized identities. Improved measurement of salient aspects of participants' identities and increased recruitment and retention of participants from diverse backgrounds is necessary to more fully understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on all people affected by EDs and DE. Concurrently, increased access to affordable and culturally sensitive care is urgently required to meet the extensive treatment needs already documented.

| S-EPMC9347485 | biostudies-literature

Reply to comment by Kienle et al. 2017.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC5627218 | biostudies-literature

Sometimes Less Is Not Enough: A Commentary on Greiff et al. (2015).

Project description:In this commentary, I discuss some critical issues in the study by Greiff, S.; Stadler, M.; Sonnleitner, P.; Wolff, C.; Martin, R., "Sometimes less is more: Comparing the validity of complex problem solving measures", Intelligence 2015, 50, 100-113. I conclude that-counter to the claims made in the original study-the specific study design was not suitable for deriving conclusions about the validity of different complex problem-solving (CPS) measurement approaches. Furthermore, a more elaborate consideration of previous CPS research was found to challenge Greiff et al.'s conclusions even further. Therefore, I argue that researchers should be aware of the differences between several kinds of CPS assessment tools and conceptualizations when the validity of CPS assessment tools is examined in future research.

| S-EPMC6526428 | biostudies-other