BRM Promoter Polymorphisms and Survival of Advanced Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients in the Princess Margaret Cohort and CCTG BR.24 Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: BRM, a key catalytic subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex, is a putative tumor susceptibility gene that is silenced in 15% of non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Two novel BRM promoter polymorphisms (BRM-741 and BRM-1321) are associated with reversible epigenetic silencing of BRM protein expression. Experimental Design: Advanced NSCLC patients from the Princess Margaret (PM) cohort study and from the CCTG BR.24 clinical trial were genotyped for BRM promoter polymorphisms. Associations of BRM variants with survival were assessed using log-rank tests, the method of Kaplan and Meier, and Cox proportional hazards models. Promoter swap, luciferase assays, and chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) experiments evaluated polymorphism function. In silico analysis of publicly available gene expression datasets with outcome were performed. Results: Carrying the homozygous variants of both polymorphisms (“double homozygotes”, DH) when compared with those carrying the double wild-type was associated with worse overall survival, with an adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) of 2.74 (95% CI, 1.9–4.0). This was confirmed in the BR.24 trial (aHR, 8.97; 95% CI, 3.3–18.5). Lower BRM gene expression (by RNA-Seq or microarray) was associated with worse outcome (P < 0.04). ChIP and promoter swap experiments confirmed binding of MEF2D and HDAC9 only to homozygotes of each polymorphism, associated with reduced promoter activity in the DH. Conclusions: Epigenetic regulatory molecules bind to two BRM promoter sequence variants but not to their wild-type sequences. These variants are associated with adverse overall and progression-free survival. Decreased BRM gene expression, seen with these variants, is also associated with worse overall survival. Clin Cancer Res; 23(10); 2460–70. ©2016 AACR.
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 | 0.002 | 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".