Integrative Genomics Identifies Molecular Alterations that Challenge the Linear Model of Melanoma Progression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Superficial spreading melanoma (SSM) and nodular melanoma (NM) are believed to represent sequential phases of linear progression from radial to vertical growth. Several lines of clinical, pathologic, and epidemiologic evidence suggest, however, that SSM and NM might be the result of independent pathways of tumor development. We utilized an integrative genomic approach that combines single nucleotide polymorphism array (6.0; Affymetrix) with gene expression array (U133A 2.0; Affymetrix) to examine molecular differences between SSM and NM. Pathway analysis of the most differentially expressed genes between SSM and NM (N = 114) revealed significant differences related to metabolic processes. We identified 8 genes (DIS3, FGFR1OP, G3BP2, GALNT7, MTAP, SEC23IP, USO1, and ZNF668) in which NM/SSM-specific copy number alterations correlated with differential gene expression (P < 0.05; Spearman's rank). SSM-specific genomic deletions in G3BP2, MTAP, and SEC23IP were independently verified in two external data sets. Forced overexpression of metabolism-related gene MTAP (methylthioadenosine phosphorylase) in SSM resulted in reduced cell growth. The differential expression of another metabolic-related gene, aldehyde dehydrogenase 7A1 (ALDH7A1), was validated at the protein level by using tissue microarrays of human melanoma. In addition, we show that the decreased ALDH7A1 expression in SSM may be the result of epigenetic modifications. Our data reveal recurrent genomic deletions in SSM not present in NM, which challenge the linear model of melanoma progression. Furthermore, our data suggest a role for altered regulation of metabolism-related genes as a possible cause of the different clinical behavior of SSM and NM.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".