MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083690848 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2020-29

Abstract 29: Integrating computational epigenetic and statistical approaches to investigate how genome-wide transcription factor (TF)-DNA bindings affect breast cancer risk

2020· article· en· W3083690848 on OpenAlexaff
Wanqing Wen, Zhishan Chen, Quan Long, Wei Zheng, Xingyi Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenome-wide association studyBreast cancerFOXA1EpigeneticsComputational biologyBiologyContext (archaeology)GeneticsGenetic associationBioinformaticsCancerGeneGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Fine-mapping and functional genomic studies of risk loci identified by genome wide association studies (GWAS) of breast cancer suggest that risk-associated regulatory variants may disrupt DNA binding affinities of transcription factors (TFs), such as FOXA1 and ESR1, thus altering gene expression and affecting breast cancer risk. To date, however, no studies have directly investigated how genome-wide TF-DNA bindings in a tissue-specific context affect breast cancer risk. Methods: We recently developed an analytic framework using computational epigenetic approaches and generalized mixed models to identify breast cancer risk associated cis-regulatory elements that are occupied by TFs. Summary statistics derived from GWAS of imputed data for approximately 11 million genetic variants were obtained from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). A total of 113 ChIP-seq datasets for TFs and chromatin features were annotated from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) and Roadmap projects and the Cistrome database (http://cistrome.org/) in multiple breast cancer cell lines..Chi-square values reported in the BCAC dataset were used to measure breast cancer risk associated with a genetic variant. To investigate TF-DNA bindings for breast cancer risk, we constructed generalized mixed models to evaluate the associations between the Chi-square values and binding sites of single TF or co-occupied by multiple TFs, given linkage disequilibrium (LD) blocks of variants to handle their dependence. To define approximately independent LD blocks similar to other studies, we defined LD blocks using non-overlapping segments of 100k bps. In addition, we investigated the effect of putative cis-regulatory elements characterized by TF-DNA bindings and chromatin features on breast cancer risk. Results: We identified a total of 22 TFs where their TF-DNA bindings were significantly associated with breast cancer risk at P < 1 × 10−5, with the top five TFs being FOXA1, SIN3AK, ESR1, TCF7l2, and AR (P < 1 × 10−10). We further observed stronger associations of breast cancer risk with co-occupied TF-TF DNA bindings, with the top five TF pairs (P < 1 × 10−16) being FOXA1+E2F1, FOXA1+NR2F2, FOXA1+ESR1, FOXA1+SIN3, and FOXA1+TCF12. The interactions of TF-TF DNA bindings for these five TF pairs were highly significant (P < 1 × 10−5). In addition, our results showed a significant interaction (P < 1 × 10−5) between chromatin features and the TF-DNA bindings. As compared with quiescent/low chromatin features, more TF-DNA bindings in enhancers, strong or weak transcription, or heterochromatin were associated with lower breast cancer risk. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that putative regulatory variants, which alter the TF-DNA binding affinities, particularly those located in TF-TF co-occupied sites, and TF-DNA binding colocalized with chromatin features, play an important role in breast cancer risk. Our approaches can be generalized to investigate the effect of genome-wide TF-DNA bindings on the risk of any human cancers that have comprehensive ChIP-seq and large-scale GWAS data. Citation Format: Wanqing Wen, Zhishan Chen, Quan Long, Wei Zheng, Xingyi Guo. Integrating computational epigenetic and statistical approaches to investigate how genome-wide transcription factor (TF)-DNA bindings affect breast cancer risk [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 29.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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 venueCancer ResearchSame topicNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207