MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896600424 · doi:10.1101/gr.231696.117

Aberrant <i>PRDM9</i> expression impacts the pan-cancer genomic landscape

2018· article· en· W2896600424 on OpenAlexafffund
Armande Ang Houle, Heather Gibling, Fabien C. Lamaze, Hilary A. Edgington, David Soave, Marie-Julie Favé, Mawussé Agbessi, Vanessa Bruat, Lincoln Stein, Philip Awadalla

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersOntario Council on Graduate Studies, Council of Ontario UniversitiesGovernment of OntarioCouncil of Ontario UniversitiesOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsHomologous recombinationGenome instabilityMeiosisGeneChromatinDNADNA damage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The binding of PRDM9 to chromatin is a key step in the induction of DNA double-strand breaks associated with meiotic recombination hotspots; it is normally expressed solely in germ cells. We interrogated 1879 cancer samples in 39 different cancer types and found that PRDM9 is unexpectedly expressed in 20% of these tumors even after stringent gene homology correction. The expression levels of PRDM9 in tumors are significantly higher than those found in healthy neighboring tissues and in healthy nongerm tissue databases. Recurrently mutated regions located within 5 Mb of the PRDM9 loci, as well as differentially expressed genes in meiotic pathways, correlate with PRDM9 expression. In samples with aberrant PRDM9 expression, structural variant breakpoints frequently neighbor the DNA motif recognized by PRDM9, and there is an enrichment of structural variants at sites of known meiotic PRDM9 activity. This study is the first to provide evidence of an association between aberrant expression of the meiosis-specific gene PRDM9 with genomic instability 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations43
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome ResearchSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207