MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Germline hMLH1 promoter mutation in a Newfoundland HNPCC kindred

2003· article· en· W1850686194 on OpenAlexaffabout
RC Green, AG Green, Michelle Simms, Alan Pater, JD Robb, JS Green

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Genetics · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenetic factors in colorectal cancer
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneticsGermline mutationBiologyMutationGeneDNA mismatch repairMutantMolecular biologyDNA repair

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC) is an autosomal dominant form of inherited predisposition to colorectal and other malignancies. It is associated with mutations in DNA mismatch-repair genes, especially hMSH2 and hMLH1. Management of HNPCC families is improved if the underlying mutation in each family can be discovered. We describe a Newfoundland kindred, meeting the Amsterdam Criteria for HNPCC, in which a mutation in the promoter region of the hMLH1 gene co-segregates with the disease phenotype. The -42C > T mutation is within a putative Myb proto-oncogene binding site. Using electrophoretic mobility shift assays, we demonstrated that the mutated Myb binding sequence is less effective in binding nuclear proteins than the wild-type promoter sequence. Using in vivo transfection experiments in HeLa cells, we further demonstrated that the mutated promoter has only 37% of the activity of the wild-type promoter in driving the expression of a reporter gene. The average age of onset in six family members affected with colorectal cancer is 62 years, which is substantially later than the typical age of onset in HNPCC families. This is consistent with a substantial decrease, but not total elimination, of mismatch repair function in affected members of this family. This is the first report of a heritable hMLH1 promoter mutation in any HNPCC family.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical GeneticsSame topicGenetic factors in colorectal cancerFrench-language works237,207