Genome chaos: Survival strategy during crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome chaos, a process of complex, rapid genome re-organization, results in the formation of chaotic genomes, which is followed by the potential to establish stable genomes. It was initially detected through cytogenetic analyses, and recently confirmed by whole-genome sequencing efforts which identified multiple subtypes including "chromothripsis", "chromoplexy", "chromoanasynthesis", and "chromoanagenesis". Although genome chaos occurs commonly in tumors, both the mechanism and detailed aspects of the process are unknown due to the inability of observing its evolution over time in clinical samples. Here, an experimental system to monitor the evolutionary process of genome chaos was developed to elucidate its mechanisms. Genome chaos occurs following exposure to chemotherapeutics with different mechanisms, which act collectively as stressors. Characterization of the karyotype and its dynamic changes prior to, during, and after induction of genome chaos demonstrates that chromosome fragmentation (C-Frag) occurs just prior to chaotic genome formation. Chaotic genomes seem to form by random rejoining of chromosomal fragments, in part through non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). Stress induced genome chaos results in increased karyotypic heterogeneity. Such increased evolutionary potential is demonstrated by the identification of increased transcriptome dynamics associated with high levels of karyotypic variance. In contrast to impacting on a limited number of cancer genes, re-organized genomes lead to new system dynamics essential for cancer evolution. Genome chaos acts as a mechanism of rapid, adaptive, genome-based evolution that plays an essential role in promoting rapid macroevolution of new genome-defined systems during crisis, which may explain some unwanted consequences of cancer treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".