Breast cancer family history and allele-specific DNA methylation in the legacy girls study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family history, a well-established risk factor for breast cancer, can have both genetic and environmental contributions. Shared environment in families as well as epigenetic changes that also may be influenced by shared genetics and environment may also explain familial clustering of cancers. Epigenetic regulation, such as DNA methylation, can change the activity of a DNA segment without a change in the sequence; environmental exposures experienced across the life course can induce such changes. However, genetic-epigenetic interactions, detected as methylation quantitative trait loci (mQTLs; a.k.a. meQTLs) and haplotype-dependent allele-specific methylation (hap-ASM), can also contribute to inter-individual differences in DNA methylation patterns. To identify differentially methylated regions (DMRs) associated with breast cancer susceptibility, we examined differences in white blood cell DNA methylation in 29 candidate genes in 426 girls (ages 6-13 years) from the LEGACY Girls Study, 239 with and 187 without a breast cancer family history (BCFH). We measured methylation by targeted massively parallel bisulfite sequencing (bis-seq) and observed BCFH DMRs in two genes: ESR1 (Δ4.9%, P = 0.003) and SEC16B (Δ3.6%, P = 0.026), each of which has been previously implicated in breast cancer susceptibility and pubertal development. These DMRs showed high inter-individual variability in methylation, suggesting the presence of mQTLs/hap-ASM. Using single nucleotide polymorphisms data in the bis-seq amplicon, we found strong hap-ASM in SEC16B (with allele specific-differences ranging from 42% to 74%). These findings suggest that differential methylation in genes relevant to breast cancer susceptibility may be present early in life, and that inherited genetic factors underlie some of these epigenetic differences.
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 | 0.001 | 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".