A Novel Locus Predicts Spermatogenic Recovery among Childhood Cancer Survivors Exposed to Alkylating Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exposure to high doses of alkylating agents is associated with increased risk of impaired spermatogenesis among nonirradiated male survivors of childhood cancer, but there is substantial variation in this risk. Here we conducted a genetic study for impaired spermatogenesis utilizing whole-genome sequencing data from 167 nonirradiated male childhood cancer survivors of European ancestry from the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort treated with cyclophosphamide equivalent dose (CED) ≥4,000 mg/m2. Sperm concentration from semen analysis was assessed as the primary outcome. Common variants (MAF > 0.05) were adjusted for age at cancer diagnosis, CED, and top principal components. Rare/low-frequency variants (MAF ≤ 0.05) were evaluated jointly by various functional annotations and 4-kb sliding windows. A novel locus at 7q21.3 containing TAC1/ASNS was associated with decreased sperm concentration (rs7784118: P = 3.5 × 10−8). This association was replicated in two independent samples of SJLIFE survivors of European ancestry, including 34 nonirradiated male survivors treated with 0 < CED < 4,000 mg/m2 (P = 3.1 × 10−4) and 24 male survivors treated with CED ≥4,000 mg/m2 and radiotherapy <40 Gray (P = 0.012). No association was observed among survivors not exposed to alkylating agents included in the CED (P > 0.29). rs7784118 conferred 3.48- and 9.73-fold increases in risk for clinically defined oligospermia and azoospermia and improved prediction of normospermic, oligospermic, and azoospermic states by 13.7%, 5.3%, and 21.7%. rs7784118 was associated with decreased testosterone level, increased levels of follicle stimulating and luteinizing hormones, and 8.52-fold increased risk of Leydig cell failure. Additional research is warranted to determine how this SNP influences spermatogenesis and to assess its clinical utility in characterizing high-risk survivors and guiding intervention strategies. Significance: The identified genetic markers harbor potential clinical utility in characterizing high-risk survivors and guiding intervention strategies including pretreatment patient counseling and use of fertility preservation services.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".