MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

CYP11A1 Is a Predictor of Mammographic Breast Density.

2009· article· en· W2320002232 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Li, Louise Eriksson, Keith Humphreys, Kamila Czene, Jianjun Liu, Per Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerSingle-nucleotide polymorphismMinor allele frequencyBiologyAllele frequencyPopulationOncologyGenotypingGeneticsMedicineInternal medicineAlleleCancerBioinformaticsGenotypeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mammographic density (MD) is a strong predictor of breast cancer risk and is highly correlated with the hormone exposure profiles of women. It is also a highly heritable risk factor (heritable component ∼67%). As such, many efforts have been made to identify underlying genetic determinants of MD within pathways related to steroid hormone biosynthesis and metabolism. Several associations with genetic polymorphisms in genes involved in estrogen metabolism have been previously described (e.g. COMT and HSD3B1). Still, there is controversy among the conclusions of these studies. In addition, only a few candidate genes have been interrogated at a time. In this study, we assess associations of genetic variants with MD using the most extensive estrogen metabolic pathway coverage to date.Materials and methods:Cases were 891 Swedish-born women who were 50-74 years of age at diagnosis and diagnosed with breast cancer between October 1993 and March 1995. 840 controls were population and frequency matched to the expected age distribution of the cases.MD was measured using a computer-assisted technique (Cumulus, University of Toronto, Canada) and evaluated by comparing the dense area by the total breast area.Genotyping was performed on a total of 239 SNPs in 34 estrogen metabolic genes using the Sequenom (San Diego, California) primer extension-based assay. SNPs with a call rate <85%, minor allele frequency <1% or out of Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium (p<0.05/239) were excluded from further analysis.The Cochran-Armitage trend test was carried out for all SNPs with adjustments for age, body mass index, menopausal status and hormone replacement therapy usage.Results:We report a novel association finding between MD and the gene CYP11A1. 5 out of 6 SNPs within the gene were found to be significant after adjustment. The average increase in MD attributed to these SNPs is 5.4%. Other genes with significant associations include HSD17B3, STS, and NQO1.Discussion:A high level of endogenous estrogen is well-known to be correlated with an increased risk of breast cancer. CYP11A1 encodes a member of the cytochrome P450 superfamily of enzymes and is of interest as it represents is the first as well as a rate-limiting step in steroid hormone biosynthesis.In addition, a role for CYP11A1 in the metabolism of vitamin D3 has been reported recently. High vitamin D levels have been associated with a decrease in both breast cancer risk and MD. Although the active compound most commonly implicated is 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 derived from a more extensively studied pathway, new studies have shown that a by-product of CYP11A1 exhibits similar functions in the regulation of cell proliferation and differentiation.Although CYP11A1 has been previously reported to be associated with breast cancer, it has never been studied in relation to MD. This novel finding suggests that CYP11A1 exerts an influence on MD through two different pathways linked to breast cancer and affirms MD as an intermediate phenotype for the disease. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2009;69(24 Suppl):Abstract nr 5161.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies→French-language works237,207→