Pan-cancer analysis reveals complex tumor-specific alternative polyadenylation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alternative polyadenylation (APA) of 3’ untranslated regions (3’ UTRs) has been implicated in cancer development. Earlier reports on APA in cancer primarily focused on 3’ UTR length modifications, and the conventional wisdom is that tumor cells preferentially express transcripts with shorter 3’ UTRs. Here, we analyzed the APA patterns of 114 genes, a select list of oncogenes and tumor suppressors, in 9,939 tumor and 729 normal tissue samples across 33 cancer types using RNA-Seq data from The Cancer Genome Atlas, and we found that the APA regulation machinery is much more complicated than what was previously thought. We report 77 cases (gene-cancer type pairs) of differential 3’ UTR cleavage patterns between normal and tumor tissues, involving 33 genes in 13 cancer types. For 15 genes, the tumor-specific cleavage patterns are recurrent across multiple cancer types. While the cleavage patterns in certain genes indicate apparent trends of 3’ UTR shortening in tumor samples, over half of the 77 cases imply 3’ UTR length change trends in cancer that are more complex than simple shortening or lengthening. This work extends the current understanding of APA regulation in cancer, and demonstrates how large volumes of RNA-seq data generated for characterizing cancer cohorts can be mined to investigate this process.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".