Telomere dysfunction in prostatic carcinogenesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10021 Background: Telomeres are composed of tandemly repeated DNA sequences (TTAGGG) and specific binding proteins located at the ends of eukaryotic chromosomes. They stabilize chromosomal ends; telomere shortening is an important mechanism of genomic instability and can lead to end-to-end chromosomal fusion, rearrangements and cell death. Here we evaluate the hypothesis that telomere shortening contributes to the development of prostate cancer (CaP). Methods: We used telomeric, centromeric and chromosome specific peptide-nucleic acid probes with z-stacked quantitative fluorescence in-situ hybridisation analysis to initially analyse 15 radical prostatectomy specimens and then subsequently sextant core biopsies from 80 men obtained in 1998–2001 containing high-grade prostate intraepithelial neoplasia (HPIN) only. The biopsy cohort outcome is blinded to prevent experimental bias and has a minimum follow-up of 2 years with 41 men diagnosed subsequently with CaP and 39 men without CaP on rebiopsy. Regions of interest were identifying with an overlying haematoxylin and eosin slide. Results: We found a significant decrease in telomere length in both HPIN and CaP in comparison to normal prostatic epithelium accompanied by elevated rates of aneusomy. Telomere erosion in HPIN was more common in regions of the prostate-containing CaP. We now have analyzed ∼4000 cells of matching HPIN and surrounding stroma. Preliminary analysis demonstrated that the median telomere length in HPIN is approximately 27% of the surrounding stroma with upper and lower quartiles being 16% and 38% respectively. Logistic regression analysis is in progress to determine whether the length of the shortest telomeres or the average telomeric length in a sample predicts for subsequent diagnosis of CaP. Secondary analyses are examining the effect of telomere length on the interval to the diagnosis of CaP, the effect of age on telomere length and the eventual Gleason score. Conclusions: Analysis of telomere length holds great promise for developing improved prognostic markers in prostatic carcinogenesis. This is a first of its kind study in the field. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".