Characterization of the recurrent translocation t(1;1)(p36.3;q21.1–2) in non‐Hodgkin lymphoma by multicolor banding and fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aberrations of chromosomal bands 1p36 and 1q11-q23 are among the most common chromosomal alterations in non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). In this study, 16 cases of NHL showing recurrent unbalanced translocation t(1;1)(p36;q11-23) by G-band analysis were selected for further analysis. To delineate the exact breakpoints, multicolor band analysis for chromosome 1 (M-BAND1), and locus-specific fluorescence in situ hybridization (LS-FISH) using human genome designated BAC clones were performed. In all but one dicentric case, the breakpoint was determined to involve chromosomal bands 1p36.3 and 1q21.1-2. LS-FISH analysis for the TP73, MEL1, SKI, and CASP9 loci at 1p36, and the loci IRTA1, IRTA2, BCL9, AF1Q, JTB, and MUC1 at 1q21, verified the MBAND1 results and further delineated the breakpoints. In band 1p36, two hybridization patterns were observed, one involving deletions of MEL1, TP73, and SKI, but not CASP9, and the second involving a breakpoint telomeric to TP73. In region 1q21, four hybridization patterns were observed, the first involving duplication/translocation of all five genes; the second involving duplication/translocation of BCL9, AF1Q, JTB, and MUC1; the third involving duplication/translocation of AF1Q, JTB, and MUC1; and the fourth with a breakpoint telomeric to MUC1. Using an alpha-satellite probe for chromosome 1 (D1Z5), centromeric involvement in the unbalanced translocation t(1;1)(p36.3;q21.1-2) was excluded in all but the one dicentric case, that is, dic(1;1)(p36.3;q10). In conclusion, deletion of 1p36 and duplication of 1q21 through formation of an unbalanced translocation t(1;1)(p36.3;q21.1-2) is a non-random event in NHL, suggesting a deletion-duplication mechanism involved in lymphoma progression and justifying further systematic research.
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 | 0.001 | 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".