Association of two <i>BRM</i> promoter polymorphisms and smoking status with malignant pleural mesothelioma risk and prognosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brahma (BRM), of the SWI/SNF complex, has two 6 to 7 bp insertion promoter polymorphisms (BRM-741/BRM-1321) that cause epigenetic BRM suppression, and are associated with risk of multiple cancers. BRM polymorphisms were genotyped in malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) cases and asbestos-exposed controls. Multivariable logistic regression (risk) and Cox regression (prognosis) were performed, including stratified analyses by smoking status to investigate the effect of polymorphisms on MPM risk and prognosis. Although there was no significant association overall between BRM-741/BRM-1321 and risk in patients with MPM, a differential effect by smoking status was observed (P-interaction < .001), where homozygous variants were protective (aOR of 0.18-0.28) in ever smokers, while never smokers had increased risk when carrying homozygous variants (aOR of 2.7-4.4). While there was no association between BRM polymorphisms and OS in ever-smokers, the aHR of carrying homozygous-variants of BRM-741, BRM-1321 or both were 4.0 to 8.6 in never-smokers when compared to wild-type carriers. Mechanistically, lower mRNA expression of BRM was associated with poorer general cancer prognosis. Electrophoretic mobility shift assays and chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments (ChIP) revealed high BRM insertion variant homology to MEF2 regulatory binding sites. ChIP experimentation confirmed MEF2 binding only occurs in the presence of insertion variants. DNA-affinity purification assays revealed YWHA scaffold proteins as vital to BRM mRNA expression. Never-smokers who carry BRM homozygous variants have an increased chance of developing MPM, which results in worse prognosis. In contrast, in ever-smokers, there may be a protective effect, with no difference in overall survival. Mechanisms for the interaction between BRM and smoking require further study.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".