DNA methylation patterns in adenomas from FAP, multiple adenoma and sporadic colorectal carcinoma patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colorectal adenomas have traditionally been regarded as homogeneous. The aim of our study was to identify molecular features that may differentiate sporadic adenomas from familial adenomas such as Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP) and Multiple Adenoma patients. DNA methylation was tested at Methylated IN Tumor (MINT) loci (1,2,12,31) and the CpG promoter region of genes MLH1, HPP1, MGMT, p14ARF and p16INK4a in FAP-associated adenomas (33) from 5 patients with a known APC mutation (Group 1, FAP), adenomas (29) from 4 Multiple Adenoma patients (Group 2 Multiple), adenomas (14) from 3 patients with sporadic colorectal cancers showing high microsatellite instability (Group 3, MSI-H) and adenomas (16) from 7 patients, with sporadic colorectal cancers showing microsatellite stable or low level instability (Group 4, MSS/MSI-L). Aberrant Crypt Foci (ACFs), Hyperplastic Polyps (HPs) and cancers were also examined for methylation status as well as K-ras mutation. Multiple Adenoma patients were examined for germline polymorphisms in the base excision repair gene, MYH. The familial syndrome, FAP -associated adenomas showed a significantly low frequency of MINT methylation (15.5%,) compared to sporadic MSS/MSI-L-associated adenomas (35.5%). Group 3 (MSI-H) adenomas were different in that many showed serration and a high level of methylation (57.1%). Group 2, Multiple Adenoma cases, resembled sporadic MSS/MSI-L-associated adenomas. However the promoter regions of key genes, MGMT, p14ARF and p16INK4a were methylated to a greater extent than MINTs in both sporadic and familial adenomas. Genetic profiling of adenomas supports the concept that adenomas belonging to familial syndromes pursue a different pathway to tumorigenesis than their sporadic counterpar/ts from their earliest formation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".