HPV DNA methylation at the early promoter and E1/E2 integrity: A comparison between HPV16, HPV18 and HPV45 in cervical cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare and describe type-specific characteristics of HPV16, HPV18 and HPV45 in cervical cancer with respect to 3'LCR methylation and disruption of E1/E2. METHODS: The methylation level of 137 cervical cancer samples (70 with HPV16, 37 with HPV18, and 30 with HPV45) of Brazilian patients was analyzed by pyrosequencing. PCR amplifications were performed to characterize E1 and E2 disruption as an episomal surrogate. RESULTS: The 3'LCR of HPV16 showed a higher methylation at all CpG sites (7%, 9%, 11%, 10% and 10%) than homologous HPV18 regions (4%, 5%. 6%, 9% and 5%) and HPV45 regions (7%, 7% and 5%). Presence of intact E1/E2 was associated with higher HPV16 and HPV18 methylation levels at all CpG sites (p < 0.05). Disruption of E1/E2 was more frequently found in HPV45 (97%) and HPV18 (84%) than in HPV16 DNA (30%). HPV16 disruption was more frequently found in E1 (48%) unlike HPV18, where it was found in E2 (61%). Concomitant disruption of E1/E2 was most frequent in HPV45 (72%). CONCLUSIONS: The findings showed a higher methylation associated with intact E1/E2 for HPV16 and HPV18. The closely phylogenetic related HPV18 and HPV45 share a similar methylation level and the frequency of viral genome disruption.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".