DNA hypermethylation/boundary control loss identified in retinoblastomas associated with genetic and epigenetic inactivation of the <i>RB1</i> gene promoter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DNA hypermethylation events occur frequently in human cancers, but less is known of the mechanisms leading to their initiation. Retinoblastoma, an intraocular cancer affecting young children, involves bi-allelic inactivation of the RB1 gene (RB−/-). RB1 encodes a tumour suppressing, cell cycle regulating transcription factor (pRB) that binds and regulates the RB1 core and other E2F responsive promoters with epigenetic functions that include recruitment of histone deacetylases (HDACs). Evidence suggests that bi-allelic epigenetic inactivation/hypermethylation of the RB1 core promoter (PrE-/E-), is specific to sporadic retinoblastomas (frequency~10%), whereas heritable RB1 promoter variants (Pr−/+, frequency~1-2%) are not associated with known epigenetic phenomena. We report heritable Pr−/- retinoblastomas with the expected loss of pRB expression, in which hypermethylation consistent with distal boundary displacement (BD) relative to normal peripheral blood DNAs was detected in 4/4 cases. In contrast, proximal BD was identified in 16/16 RB−/- retinoblastomas while multiple boundaries distal of the core promoter was further identified in PrE-/E-and PrE-/E+ retinoblastomas. However, weak or no DNA hypermethylation/BD in peripheral blood DNA was detected in 8/9 Pr−/+ patients, with the exception, a carrier of a microdeletion encompassing several RB1 promoter elements. These findings suggest that loss of boundary control may be a critical step leading to epigenetic inactivation of the RB1 gene and that novel DNA methylation boundaries/profiles identified in the RB1 promoter of Pr−/- retinoblastomas, may be the result of epigenetic phenomena associated with epimutation in conjunction with loss of pRB expression/binding and/or RB1 promoter interactions with boundary control elements.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".