DNA Polymerase and Mismatch Repair Exert Distinct Microsatellite Instability Signatures in Normal and Malignant Human Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although replication repair deficiency, either by mismatch repair deficiency (MMRD) and/or loss of DNA polymerase proofreading, can cause hypermutation in cancer, microsatellite instability (MSI) is considered a hallmark of MMRD alone. By genome-wide analysis of tumors with germline and somatic deficiencies in replication repair, we reveal a novel association between loss of polymerase proofreading and MSI, especially when both components are lost. Analysis of indels in microsatellites (MS-indels) identified five distinct signatures (MS-sigs). MMRD MS-sigs are dominated by multibase losses, whereas mutant-polymerase MS-sigs contain primarily single-base gains. MS deletions in MMRD tumors depend on the original size of the MS and converge to a preferred length, providing mechanistic insight. Finally, we demonstrate that MS-sigs can be a powerful clinical tool for managing individuals with germline MMRD and replication repair–deficient cancers, as they can detect the replication repair deficiency in normal cells and predict their response to immunotherapy. Significance: Exome- and genome-wide MSI analysis reveals novel signatures that are uniquely attributed to mismatch repair and DNA polymerase. This provides new mechanistic insight into MS maintenance and can be applied clinically for diagnosis of replication repair deficiency and immunotherapy response prediction. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 995
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) | 0.001 | 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".