MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318768390 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am10-1590

Abstract 1590: BRM and BRM polymorphisms applications for target therapy

2010· article· en· W2318768390 on OpenAlexaff
David Reisman, Colin Rogers, Geoffrey Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsOntario HIV Treatment Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyChromatinCancer researchCell cycle checkpointCell cycleSuppressorChromatin remodelingCell growthGeneticsCancerDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BRM is a catalytic subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex, which regulates the expression and function of key cellular proteins and signal transduction pathways, many of which have anticancer functions. BRM is lost in 15-25% of many solid tumor types. BRM is specifically tied to Rb function in that Rb-mediated growth arrest is thwarted by the loss of BRM, but restored when BRM expression is restored. Despite this observation, BRM null mice did not develop tumors, indicating that BRM is not a classic tumor suppressor protein. However, cells from these animals display distinct cell cycle abnormalities, and when these mice are exposed to carcinogens, they develop larger and 10-fold more tumors. Unlike many other anticancer proteins, however, BRM is reversibly silenced, and when it is re-expressed in BRM-deficient cell lines, growth is substantially inhibited. To understand how BRM is silenced, we sequenced the BRM promoter and found two 6-7bp inserts, so called insertion/deletion polymorphisms (IDPs). We sequenced DNA from 160 Caucasian individuals, and found that the frequency of the two polymorphism sites were approximately 20%, 50%, and 30% for the homozygous, heterozygous and wild type states respectively. In comparison, a set of 10 BRM-deficient cell lines were found to be homozygous for one or both of these polymorphic sites, while a set of 12 BRM-positive cell lines showed the opposite frequency of these IDPs_that is, almost all were wild type for both sites. From these observations, it appears that these polymorphic sites correlate with the loss of BRM. We next analyzed the presence or absence of these polymorphic sites in both BRM-positive and BRM-negative tumors. We found that the BRM-negative tumors were essentially uniformly homozygous for both polymorphic sites while the BRM-positive tumors demonstrated a distribution similar to those seen in the normal population. Because BRM appears to be a tumor susceptible gene, we hypothesize that BRM polymorphism causes the loss of BRM which then indicates a predisposition to cancer. To test this hypothesis, we are conducting a case control study and found that the ratio for lung cancer risk was 1.6 and 2.2 for the presence of one and both polymorphic sites respectively. Since BRM is silenced in cancer cells, we next determined the impact of pharmacologically restoring BRM. We next applied two BRM inducing compounds to two BRM-deficient cell lines. The application of these compounds resulted in the induction of several BRM-dependent genes indicting that the induced BRM is functional and has caused the cells to undergo growth arrest. Both of these observations were BRM-dependent because these effects could be blocked with either antiBRM shRNAi or dominant negative BRM. These findings have broad and novel implications for cancer treatment, as they show that it may it be possible to restore BRM and target treatment to the preferred patient population by simply genotyping patients. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 1590.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.354 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207