<i>FGFR3</i> preferentially colocalizes with <i>IGH</i> in the interphase nucleus of multiple myeloma patient B‐cells when <i>FGFR3</i> is located outside of CT4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many B-cell malignancies are characterized by chromosomal translocations involving IGH and a proto-oncogene. For translocations to occur, spatial proximity of translocation-prone genes is necessary. Currently, it is not known how such genes are brought into proximity with one another. Although decondensed chromosomes occupy definitive, non-random spaces in the interphase nucleus known as chromosome territories (CTs), chromatin at the edges of CTs can intermingle, and specific genomic regions from some chromosomes have been shown to "loop out" of their respective CTs. This extra-territorial positioning of specific genomic regions may provide a mechanism whereby translocation-prone genes are brought together in the interphase nucleus. FGFR3 and MAF recurrently participate in translocations with IGH at different frequencies. Using 3D, 4-color FISH, and 3D analysis software, we show frequent extra-territorial positioning of FGFR3 and significantly less frequent extra-territorial positioning of MAF. Frequent extra-territorial positioning may be characteristic of FGFR3 in B-cells from healthy adult donors and non-malignant B-cells from patients, but not in hematopoietic stem cells from patients with translocations. The frequency of extra-territorial positioning of FGFR3 and MAF in B-cells correlates with the frequency of translocations in the patient population. Most importantly, in patient B-cells, we demonstrate a significant proportion of extra-territorial FGFR3 participating in close loci pairs and/or colocalizing with IGH. This preliminary work suggests that in patient B-cells, extra-territorial positioning of FGFR3 may provide a mechanism for forming close loci pairs and/or colocalization with IGH; indirectly facilitating translocation events involving these two genes. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".