Abstract PO-026: Intra-tumor heterogeneity of HPV integration and its association with focal genomic instability in oropharyngeal cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Human papillomavirus (HPV) integration has been considered as one of the driver factors for cancer progression, but its pattern and role in carcinogenesis is still unclear. Whole genome sequencing data of 14 Japanese HPV16+ OPSCC and 13 HPV+ OPSCC from Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes were used to identify integrations and somatic mutations. The phylogenetic analysis of HPV16 revealed that in tumors of 14 Japanese subjects, the A4 variant was the most common (8/14, 57.1%), followed by the A5 variant (2/14, 14.3%), which is considered unique to HPV16 in East and Southeast Asian, and the A2/A3/D2/D3 variants (1/14, 7.1%), showing a significant difference from the distribution of the HPV16 sublineages in Europe and the United States, where the A1 variant accounts for half. A total of 250 integration breakpoints (BPs) in 20 of the 27 tumors (74.1%) were detected. We estimated the cancer cell fraction of integration BPs and found that HPV integration also shows intra-tumor heterogeneity, indicating that nearly half of the integration events occurred after carcinogenesis. Clonal BPs were more likely to occur in the E1 (P = 0.036), confirming that the disruption of the E1 gene may result in abnormal negative regulation of the E6/E7 oncogenes and promote OPSCC carcinogenesis. Subclonal BPs were less likely to occur in the E6 (P = 0.045), suggesting that the E6 may also play an important role in the process of cancer evolution after carcinogenesis. Four states of the HPV genome were identified: (1) episomal-only (7/27, 25.9%), (2) integrated-only (4/27, 14.8%), (3) clonally-mixed (episomal + clonally integrated) (11/27, 40.7%), and (4) subclonally-mixed (episomal + subclonally integrated) (5/27, 18.5%). Since nearly half of these cancers have developed with just episomal copies of HPV, integration itself is not essential for carcinogenesis and can occur during and after carcinogenesis. Interestingly, the E6/E7 were conserved in all four cancers with integrated-only HPV, while the E2 and E1 were disrupted or deleted. This confirms that the constitutive expression of E6/E7 is essential for the carcinogenesis of HPV+ OPSCC. These results suggest that some integrations may be drivers of carcinogenesis with disruption of E1/E2, as in these four cancers, and others may arise randomly due to genomic instability, as in the cancers with the E6/E7 deleted integrants. The number of BPs of structural variations (SVs) occurred in the overlapping 100 kb regions flanking integration BPs (ITG regions) was positively correlated with the number of integration BPs (Spearman’s rank correlation ρ = 0.78; Permutation test P = 9.9 × 10−5). The genomic instability that causes clonal integrations during carcinogenesis is considered to cause clonal SVs, mainly large duplications, and subclonal integrations and SVs such as large deletions. Clonal SVs, mainly large duplications, were also observed in the regions where only subclonal integrations occurred, suggesting that large duplications occur before integrations. Citation Format: Noah Sasa, Hirotaka Eguchi, Hidenori Tanaka, Takahito Fukusumi, Motoyuki Suzuki, Yukinori Takenaka, Yukinori Okada, Hidenori Inohara. Intra-tumor heterogeneity of HPV integration and its association with focal genomic instability in oropharyngeal cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-AHNS Head and Neck Cancer Conference: Innovating through Basic, Clinical, and Translational Research; 2023 Jul 7-8; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2023;29(18_Suppl):Abstract nr PO-026.
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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 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) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».