Chromosomal Instability in Microsatellite-Unstable and Stable Colon Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The genomic instability in colon cancer can be divided into at least two major types, microsatellite instability (MSI) or chromosomal instability (CIN). Although initially felt to be mutually exclusive, recent evidence suggests that there may be overlap between the two. The aim of this study was to identify chromosomal alterations at high resolution in sporadic colon cancers with high-level microsatellite instability (MSI-H) and to compare them to those present in a set of matched microsatellite stable (MSS) tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Array-based comparative genomic hybridization was used to analyze a set of 23 sporadic MSI-H and 23 MSS colon cancers matched for location, gender, stage, and age. The arrays consisted of 2,464 bacterial artificial chromosome clones. RESULTS: MSI and MSS colon cancers differed significantly with respect to frequency and type of chromosomal alterations. The median fraction of genome altered was lower among MSI-H tumors than MSS tumors (2.8% versus 30.7%, P=0.00006). However, the MSI-H tumors displayed a range of genomic alterations, from the absence of detectable alterations to extensive alterations. Frequent alterations in MSI-H tumors included gains of chromosomes 8, 12, and 13, and loss of 15q14. In contrast, the most frequent alterations in MSS tumors were gains of 7, 13, 8q, and 20, and losses of 8p, 17p, and 18. A small, previously uncharacterized, genomic deletion on 16p13.2, found in 35% of MSI-H and 21% of MSS tumors, was confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization. CONCLUSION: MSI and CIN are not mutually exclusive forms of genomic instability in sporadic colon cancer, with MSI tumors also showing varying degrees of CIN.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".