MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3037584721 · doi:10.1101/2020.06.25.162958

Human papillomavirus type 16 sub-lineages and integration in cancer

2020· preprint· en· W3037584721 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Jackson, Alejandro Ortigas-Vásquez, Ingeborg Zehbe

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityLakehead UniversityThunder Bay Regional Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenomePopulationGenome instabilityLineage (genetic)CancerGeneticsComputational biologyVirologyGeneDNAMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Our lab has been intrigued by the fact that viral genomes often take on the role of mobile elements to perpetuate their existence in a complex organism’s genome. Multiple DNA viruses such as Epstein-Barr virus, hepatitis B virus, and human papillomavirus (HPV) can invade their host genome, as “genomic parasites”. We have been investigating HPV type 16 (HPV16), which is a prominent human tumour virus. In our recent in vitro work using 3D organoids, a common variant of HPV16’s coding region elicited early integration into the host genome compared to the HPV16 prototype sequence. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) data confirmed a transcriptomic profile of increased proliferation and chromosomal instability—both hallmarks of cancer. Epidemiologically, this variant is associated with a high cervical cancer incidence. To take inquiries a step further, we investigated variant-specific integration across HPV16-related cancers using NGS data from population-derived clinical samples in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)-curated database. Data were analyzed for HPV16 positivity, sub-lineage, and viral-host integration using a bioinformatic pipeline of open-source tools, including HPVDetector. Here, we report the analysis of 120 cervical cancer cases comprising HPV16 positive and negative samples as well as their different sub-lineage and integration status. The integration signature between variant and prototype did not differ quantitatively but qualitatively: that of the variant being related to hypoxia/energetics (Warburg effect) and that of the prototype being much more varied to include host immune abrogation and cancer pathways activation. We conclude by discussing challenges and future directions for expanding these analyses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicCervical Cancer and HPV Research→French-language works237,207→