Subtype-specific transcriptional regulators in breast tumors subjected to genetic and epigenetic alterations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Breast cancer consists of multiple distinct tumor subtypes, and results from epigenetic and genetic aberrations that give rise to distinct transcriptional profiles. Despite previous efforts to understand transcriptional deregulation through transcription factor networks, the transcriptional mechanisms leading to subtypes of the disease remain poorly understood. RESULTS: We used a sophisticated computational search of thousands of expression datasets to define extended signatures of distinct breast cancer subtypes. Using ENCODE ChIP-seq data of surrogate cell lines and motif analysis we observed that these subtypes are determined by a distinct repertoire of lineage-specific transcription factors. Furthermore, specific pattern and abundance of copy number and DNA methylation changes at these TFs and targets, compared to other genes and to normal cells were observed. Overall, distinct transcriptional profiles are linked to genetic and epigenetic alterations at lineage-specific transcriptional regulators in breast cancer subtypes. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The analysis code and data are deposited at https://bitbucket.org/qzhu/breast.cancer.tf/. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".