Correlating breakage-fusion-bridge events with the overall chromosomal instability and in vitro karyotype evolution in prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromosomal instability (CIN) is thought to underlie the generation of chromosomal changes and genomic heterogeneity during prostatic tumorigenesis. The breakage-fusion-bridge (BFB) cycle is one of the CIN mechanisms responsible for characteristic mitotic abnormalities and the occurrence of specific classes of genomic rearrangements. However, there is little detailed information concerning the role of BFB and CIN in generating genomic diversity in prostate cancer. In this study we have used molecular cytogenetic methods and array comparative genomic hybridization analysis (aCGH) of DU145, PC3, LNCaP, 1532T and 1542T to investigate the in vitro role of BFB as a CIN mechanism in karyotype evolution. Analysis of mitotic structures in all five prostate cancer cell lines showed increased frequency of anaphase bridges and nuclear strings. Structurally rearranged dicentric chromosomes were observed in all of the investigated cell lines, and Spectral Karyotyping (SKY) analysis was used to identify the participating rearranged chromosomes. Multicolor banding (mBAND) and aCGH analysis of some of the more complex chromosomal rearrangements and associated amplicons identified inverted duplications, most frequently involving chromosome 8. Chromosomal breakpoint analysis showed there was a higher frequency of rearrangement at centromeric and pericentromeric genomic regions. The distribution of inverted duplications and ladder-like amplifications was mapped by mBAND and by aCGH. Adjacent spacing of focal amplifications and microdeletions were observed, and focal amplification of centromeric and end sequences was present, particularly in the most unstable line DU145. SKY analysis of this line identified chromosome segments fusing with multiple recipient chromosomes (jumping translocations) identifying potential dicentric sources. Telomere free end analysis indicated loss of DNA sequence. Moreover, the cell lines with the shortest telomeres had the most complex karyotypes, suggesting that despite the expression of telomerase, the reduced telomere length could be driving the observed BFB events and elevated levels of CIN in these lines.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".