Germline and somatic genetic variants in the p53 pathway interact to affect cancer risk, progression and drug response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Insights into oncogenesis derived from cancer susceptibility loci could facilitate better cancer management and treatment through precision oncology. However, therapeutic applications have thus far been limited by our current lack of understanding regarding both their interactions with somatic cancer driver mutations and their influence on tumorigenesis. Here, by integrating germline datasets relating to cancer susceptibility with tumour data capturing somatically-acquired genetic variation, we provide evidence that single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) and somatic mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor pathway can interact to influence cancer development, progression and treatment response. We go on to provide human genetic evidence of a tumor-promoting role for the pro-survival activities of p53, which supports the development of more effective therapy combinations through their inhibition in cancers retaining wild-type p53. Significance We describe significant interactions between heritable and somatic genetic variants in the p53 pathway that affect cancer susceptibility, progression and treatment response. Our results offer evidence of how cancer susceptibility SNPs can interact with cancer driver genes to affect cancer progression and identify novel therapeutic targets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
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".