MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chromothripsis: A New Mechanism for Rapid Karyotype Evolution

2015· review· en· W2104154956 on OpenAlexaff
Mitchell L. Leibowitz, Cheng‐Zhong Zhang, David Pellman

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Genetics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalities
Canadian institutionsPediatric Oncology Group
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesHoward Hughes Medical InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsChromothripsisBiologyGeneticsKaryotypeChromosomeMechanism (biology)Computational biologyDNAGenome instabilityGeneDNA damage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chromosomal rearrangements are generally thought to accumulate gradually over many generations. However, DNA sequencing of cancer and congenital disorders uncovered a new pattern in which multiple rearrangements arise all at once. The most striking example, chromothripsis, is characterized by tens or hundreds of rearrangements confined to a single chromosome or to local regions over a few chromosomes. Genomic analysis of chromothripsis and the search for its biological mechanism have led to new insights on how chromosome segregation errors can generate mutagenesis and changes to the karyotype. Here, we review the genomic features of chromothripsis and summarize recent progress on understanding its mechanism. This includes reviewing new work indicating that one mechanism to generate chromothripsis is through the physical isolation of chromosomes in abnormal nuclear structures (micronuclei). We also discuss connections revealed by recent genomic analysis of cancers between chromothripsis, chromosome bridges, and ring chromosomes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations212
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of GeneticsSame topicGenomic variations and chromosomal abnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207