MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982282601 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2012-1649

Abstract 1649: Genome-wide association study of copy number variations in serous epithelial ovarian cancer susceptibility

2012· article· en· W1982282601 on OpenAlexaff
Ya-Yu Tsai, Álvaro N.A. Monteiro, Catherine M. Phelan, Edwin S. Iversen, Brooke L. Fridley, Y. Ann Chen, Zhihua Chen, Jenny Permuth‐Wey, Heather Jim, Robert A. Vierkant, Julie M. Cunningham, Jill S. Barnholtz‐Sloan, Avery August, Rebecca Sutphen, Steven A. Narod, Harvey A. Risch, Joellen M. Schildkraut, Ellen L. Goode, David Fenstermacher, Thomas A. Sellers

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsCoalition for Research in Women's Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopy-number variationGenome-wide association studyBiologyOvarian cancerCopy number analysisComparative genomic hybridizationGeneticsSerous fluidCancerSingle-nucleotide polymorphismSNP arrayBreast cancerChromosomeGenomeGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract DNA copy number variations (CNVs) are a significant and ubiquitous source of human genetic variation. However, the influence of CNVs on cancer susceptibility remains poorly understood. Out of 83 genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on cancer to date, only a few studies found significant associations on germline CNVs and cancer. Here we analyzed data from our ongoing two-stage GWAS of four North American case-control studies to test the hypothesis that CNVs in germline DNA from peripheral blood lymphocytes may serve as risk factors for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). To reduce disease heterogeneity, we focused on the subset of cases with serous histology. The analysis was therefore based on 942 serous ovarian cancer patients and 1,682 healthy controls who were genotyped using the Illumina 610K quad array. Subjects with extreme noise and genomic waviness in log R ratio (LR) were excluded prior to segmentation; principal component analysis was performed to adjust for batch effects. CNV segmentation was performed on LR data from 22 autosomes using circular binary segmentation embedded in the Copy Number Analysis Module from Golden Helix SNP Variation Suite version 7. Copy number segment covariates were discretized based on the thresholds that signify a transition between copy number states (deletion/no deletion; duplication/no duplication) after the segmentation. Unconditional logistic regression on a log-additive model was used to evaluate the association between copy number states and serous EOC risk after adjusting for study sites. By comparing single marker copy number states at 388,958 SNPs on 22 autosomes, we observed a total of 134 SNPs significantly associated with risk of serous EOC with a p value below 10−6. Associations with deletion polymorphisms were observed on chromosomes 7, 8, 14, and 18 when controlling for false discovery rate at 1%; no duplication polymorphisms were significant. We observed a large deletion at chromosome 14 that occurred in 8.9% of cases but in only 3.9% of controls, with a p value of 5.59×10−8 (Odds Ratio (OR): 2.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.82-3.60). Another common deletion on chromosome 7 occurred in 8.8% of cases and only 4.3% of controls (p=3.83×10−6; OR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1.60-3.10). Two additional regions on chromosomes 8 and 18 with deletion events less than 5% were also identified. Women who harbored the deletion on chromosome 8 were at lower risk of developing serous ovarian cancer (p=4.83×10−8; OR: 0.04, 95% CI: 0.01-0.30). Women who carried the deletion on chromosome 18 had an increased risk for serous EOC (p=9.04×10−7; OR: 7.26, 95% CI: 2.94-17.97). Further validation of these four regions using independent data sets is currently underway. In summary, this is the largest reported genome-wide study of CNVs and serous EOC risk. These preliminary results suggested that germline CNVs may play an important role in ovarian cancer susceptibility. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 1649. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-1649

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207