<i>BRAF</i> mutation is associated with DNA methylation in serrated polyps and cancers of the colorectum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Mutations in BRAF have been linked with colorectal cancers (CRC) showing high level microsatellite instability (MSI-H). However, the distribution of BRAF mutations in MSI-H cancers remains to be clarified with respect to precursor lesions and the CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP). METHODS: Forty three hyperplastic polyps (HP), nine mixed polyps (MP), five serrated adenomas (SA), 28 conventional adenomas (AD), 18 hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancers (HNPCC), and 127 sporadic CRC (46 MSI-H and 81 non-MSI-H) were collected from patients undergoing colectomy for either CRC or hyperplastic polyposis. Twenty five of 57 serrated lesions were derived from four patients with hyperplastic polyposis. HP were further subdivided according to recently documented morphological criteria into 27 classical HP and 16 variant lesions described as "sessile serrated adenoma" (SSA). All tumours were screened for BRAF activating mutations. RESULTS: The BRAF mutation was more frequent in SSA (75%) and MP (89%) than in classical HP (19%), SA (20%), and AD (0%) (p<0.0001), and also in sporadic MSI-H cancers (76%) compared with HNPCC (0%) and sporadic non-MSI-H cancers (9%) (p<0.0001). The BRAF mutation was identified more often in CIMP-high serrated polyps (72%) and CIMP-high CRC (77%) than in CIMP-low (30%) and CIMP-negative (13%) polyps (p = 0.002) as well as CIMP-low (18%) and CIMP-negative (0%) CRC (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The BRAF mutation was frequently seen in SSA and in sporadic MSI-H CRC, both of which were associated with DNA methylation. Sporadic MSI-H cancers may originate in SSA and not adenomas, and BRAF mutation and DNA methylation are early events in this "serrated" pathway.
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".