Integrated pathway and epistasis analysis reveals interactive effect of genetic variants at <scp><i>TERF1</i></scp> and <scp><i>AFAP1L2</i></scp> loci on melanoma risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have characterized 13 loci associated with melanoma, which only account for a small part of melanoma risk. To identify new genes with too small an effect to be detected individually but which collectively influence melanoma risk and/or show interactive effects, we used a two-step analysis strategy including pathway analysis of genome-wide SNP data, in a first step, and epistasis analysis within significant pathways, in a second step. Pathway analysis, using the gene-set enrichment analysis (GSEA) approach and the gene ontology (GO) database, was applied to the outcomes of MELARISK (3,976 subjects) and MDACC (2,827 subjects) GWASs. Cross-gene SNP-SNP interaction analysis within melanoma-associated GOs was performed using the INTERSNP software. Five GO categories were significantly enriched in genes associated with melanoma (false discovery rate ≤ 5% in both studies): response to light stimulus, regulation of mitotic cell cycle, induction of programmed cell death, cytokine activity and oxidative phosphorylation. Epistasis analysis, within each of the five significant GOs, showed significant evidence for interaction for one SNP pair at TERF1 and AFAP1L2 loci (pmeta-int = 2.0 × 10(-7) , which met both the pathway and overall multiple-testing corrected thresholds that are equal to 9.8 × 10(-7) and 2.0 × 10(-7) , respectively) and suggestive evidence for another pair involving correlated SNPs at the same loci (pmeta-int = 3.6 × 10(-6) ). This interaction has important biological relevance given the key role of TERF1 in telomere biology and the reported physical interaction between TERF1 and AFAP1L2 proteins. This finding brings a novel piece of evidence for the emerging role of telomere dysfunction into melanoma development.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".