Germline determinants of the somatic mutation landscape in 2,642 cancer genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cancers develop through somatic mutagenesis, however germline genetic variation can markedly contribute to tumorigenesis via diverse mechanisms. We discovered and phased 88 million germline single nucleotide variants, short insertions/deletions, and large structural variants in whole genomes from 2,642 cancer patients, and employed this genomic resource to study genetic determinants of somatic mutagenesis across 39 cancer types. Our analyses implicate damaging germline variants in a variety of cancer predisposition and DNA damage response genes with specific somatic mutation patterns. Mutations in the MBD4 DNA glycosylase gene showed association with elevated C>T mutagenesis at CpG dinucleotides, a ubiquitous mutational process acting across tissues. Analysis of somatic structural variation exposed complex rearrangement patterns, involving cycles of templated insertions and tandem duplications, in BRCA1 -deficient tumours. Genome-wide association analysis implicated common genetic variation at the APOBEC3 gene cluster with reduced basal levels of somatic mutagenesis attributable to APOBEC cytidine deaminases across cancer types. We further inferred over a hundred polymorphic L1/LINE elements with somatic retrotransposition activity in cancer. Our study highlights the major impact of rare and common germline variants on mutational landscapes in cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".