MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2775555769 · doi:10.1101/225433

Androgen receptor binding sites are highly mutated in prostate cancer

2017· preprint· en· W2775555769 on OpenAlexaff
Tunç Morova, Mehmet Gönen, Attila Gürsoy, Özlem Keskin, Nathan A. Lack

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersTürkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Araştırma Kurumu
KeywordsProstate cancerAndrogen receptorCancer researchTranscription factorCarcinogenesisBiologyChromoplexyEstrogen receptorGeneticsCancerBreast cancerGenePCA3

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Androgen receptor (AR) signalling is essential to nearly all prostate cancer cells. Any alterations to AR-mediated transcription can have a profound effect on prostate carcinogenesis and tumour growth. While the AR protein has been extensively studied, little is know about mutations to the non-coding regions where AR binds to DNA. Using clinical whole genome sequencing, we demonstrate that AR binding sites have a dramatically increased rate of mutations that is greater than any other transcription factor and specific to only prostate cancer. Demonstrating this may be common to lineage-specific transcription factors, estrogen receptor binding sites had an elevated rate of mutations in breast cancer. Based on the mutations observed at the binding site of AR and other related transcription factors, we proposed that AR occupancy impairs access of base excision repair enzymes to endogenous DNA damage. Overall, this work demonstrates that non-coding AR binding sites are frequently mutated in prostate cancer and may potentially act as driver mutations.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→