Abstract 1418: Identification of recurrent regulatory mutations in breast cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Since the identification of recurrent TERT promoter mutations in melanoma resulting in increased TERT expression, there has been increased interest in identifying recurrent regulatory non-coding mutations (Horn et al. 2013, Huang et al. 2013). Several studies have attempted pan-cancer analyses in order to identify these types of mutations, but often the results suffer from low coverage of regulatory regions or do not extend to breast cancer. While some breast cancer specific studies have identified some significantly mutated promoters and lncRNAs, they have often failed to incorporate transcriptome data to assess the impact and relevance of mutations on the expression of genes within tumors (Nik-Zainal et al. 2016). In order to address this, we assembled and generated a data set consisting of 458 breast cancer cases with matched tumor/normal pairs. This cohort consists of 22.4% luminal A, 19% luminal B, 16.4% HER2-enriched, 21% basal-like, 0.8% normal-like, and 20.4% unknown with regards to molecular subtype. This is important due to different breast cancer subtypes having dissimilar phenotypes and varying rates of gene coding mutations. This data set has a mix of whole genome, exome, transcriptome, and custom capture sequencing. We designed a custom capture reagent that covers regions assembled from regulatory databases, 5' untranslated regions, 500 bases upstream and downstream of transcription start sites, and 50,000 bases upstream and downstream of 178 genes that have been implicated as being important in breast cancer (Lesurf et al. 2016). While this custom capture region is similar in size to an exome, it has advantages over whole genome and exome sequencing, particularly with respect to coverage in GC-rich promoter regions. With these data, we predict that we will be able to identify novel, regulatory coding and non-coding drivers of breast cancer that would not be discovered without integrated analysis of the DNA- and RNA-seq data for each tumor. Instrument data were processed using the McDonnell Genome Institute somatic variant calling pipeline that includes 5 SNV callers and 3 indel callers. We then used these steps to filter variants: min. 20x coverage in both the tumor and normal sample, min. 2.5% tumor variant allele frequency, min. 3 variant supporting reads in the tumor sample, max. 10% variant allele frequency in the normal sample. We also filtered against gnomAD and a panel of normals. Rheinbay et al. 2017 identified recurrently mutated promoter regions for nine genes: TBC1D12, ZNF143, ALDOA, NEAT1, RMRP, CITED2, FOXA1, CTNNB1, LEPROTL1. Our preliminary analysis has revealed that we also see mutations within these regions. We plan to present on the significance of mutations within these previously seen regions, based on recurrence and transcriptome changes, as well as novel recurrent regulatory regions that our analysis reveals, particularly with respect to molecular subtype. Citation Format: Kelsy C. Cotto, Arpad Danos, Robert Lesurf, Morag Park, Malachi Griffith, Obi L. Griffith. Identification of recurrent regulatory mutations in breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 1418.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».