Tumor development in the Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome is associated with a variety of constitutional molecular 11p15 alterations including imprinting defects of KCNQ1OT1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dysregulation of imprinted genes on human chromosome 11p15 has been implicated in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS), an overgrowth syndrome associated with congenital malformations and tumor predisposition. The molecular basis of BWS is complex and heterogeneous. The syndrome is associated with alterations in two distinct imprinting domains on 11p15: a telomeric domain containing the H19 and IGF2 genes and a centromeric domain including the KCNQ1OT1 and CDKNIC genes. It has been postulated that disorders of imprinting in the telomeric domain are associated with overgrowth and cancer predisposition, whereas those in the centromeric domain involve malformations but not tumor development. In this study of 125 BWS cases, we confirm the association of tumors with constitutional defects in the 11p15 telomeric domain; six of 21 BWS cases with uniparental disomy (UPD) of 11p15 developed tumors and one of three of the rare BWS subtype with hypermethylation of the H19 gene developed tumors. Most importantly, we find that five of 32 individuals with BWS and imprinting defects in the centromeric domain developed embryonal tumors. Furthermore, the type of tumors observed in BWS cases with telomeric defects are different from those seen in BWS cases with defects limited to the centromeric domain. Whereas Wilms' tumor was the most frequent tumor seen in BWS cases with UPD for 11p15 or H19 hypermethylation, none of the embryonal tumors with imprinting defects at KCNQ1OT1 was a Wilms' tumor. This suggests that distinct tumor predisposition profiles result from dysregulation of the telomeric domain versus the centromeric domain and that these imprinting defects activate distinct genetic pathways for embryonal tumorigenesis.
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".