MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047252135 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.pedca19-b12

Abstract B12: PAX3 translocations co-opt super enhancers and intrinsically disordered fusion partners in rhabdomyosarcoma

2020· article· en· W3047252135 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Berkley E. Gryder, Marco Wachtel, Winston Ewert, Kenneth Chang, Osama E. Demerdash, Young Song, Beat W. Schäfer, Christopher R. Vakoc, Javed Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicChromosomal and Genetic Variations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnhancerCTCFPAX3Alveolar rhabdomyosarcomaFusion geneBiologyCohesinGeneticsChromosomal translocationTranscription factorComputational biologyFusion transcriptChromatinCancer researchGeneRhabdomyosarcomaMedicineSarcoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Chromosomal translocations drive many types of childhood cancer. Fusion-positive rhabdomyosarcoma (FP-RMS) tumors are found most frequently with a fusion between PAX3 and FOXO1, but less frequent translocation partners have been discovered, including INO80D and NCOA1. We hypothesized that all FP-RMS translocations are selecting simultaneously for (1) enhancers active in a myoblast-like epigenome and (2) protein partners with high-levels of intrinsic disorder to give PAX3 enhanced transcriptional strength. Analysis of primary tumors revealed these diverse PAX3 fusions recapitulate a near-identical transcriptome, suggesting uniform underlying molecular mechanisms. ChIP-seq evidence from cell lines and primary tumors suggested that in all FP-RMS tumors, large super-enhancer (SE) elements were present near each chosen translocation partner (distal to FOXO1, INO80D, or NCOA1). Using tools to determine the 3-D folding of chromatin (3C, 4C-seq, and HiChIP), we discovered an extensive network of hijacked FOXO1 enhancers and a SE that physically interact together and with the PAX3 promoter, only in PAX3-FOXO1 positive cells. Furthermore, pooled CRISPR tiling of cis-regulatory elements revealed special dependence on the FOXO1 SE, or certain CTCF boundary elements that facilitate enhancer interactions. ChIP-seq paired to short-term CRISPR experiments shows PAX3-FOXO1 transcription depends on an extended network of related enhancers distal to FOXO1. We find these enhancers are unique to early myoblast stages of differentiation and are bound by myogenic TFs in RMS, suggesting miswiring of normal myogenic enhancer logic. While many SE-driven genes exist in FP-RMS, most are never selected for translocation partners. We found that FOXO1, INO80D, and NCOA1 are all highly disordered proteins, a theme they hold in common despite having no amino acid sequence homology. Initial evidence suggests that PAX3-FOXO1 enables the formation of phase condensates in the nucleus that recruit high-levels of transcriptional machinery such as BRD4. Ongoing work is exploring the mechanistic chemical determinants of these interactions, and how phase condensates are manipulated by drugs that block PAX3-FOXO1’s transcriptional output. Together our studies are illuminating new paradigms for understanding how fusion transcription factors drive cancer. Citation Format: Berkley E. Gryder, Marco Wachtel, Winston Ewert, Kenneth Chang, Osama El Demerdash, Young Song, Beat W Schäfer, Christopher R. Vakoc, Javed Khan. PAX3 translocations co-opt super enhancers and intrinsically disordered fusion partners in rhabdomyosarcoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on the Advances in Pediatric Cancer Research; 2019 Sep 17-20; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(14 Suppl):Abstract nr B12.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueCancer ResearchSame topicChromosomal and Genetic VariationsFrench-language works237,207