The Landscape of the Heritable Cancer Genome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have found hundreds of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) associated with increased risk of cancer. However, the amount of heritable risk explained by SNPs is limited, leaving most of the cancer heritability unexplained. Tumor sequencing projects have shown that causal mutations are enriched in genic regions. We hypothesized that SNPs located in protein coding genes and nearby regulatory regions could explain a significant proportion of the heritable risk of cancer. To perform gene-level heritability analysis, we developed a new method, called Bayesian Gene Heritability Analysis (BAGHERA), to estimate the heritability explained by all genotyped SNPs and by those located in genic regions using GWAS summary statistics. BAGHERA was specifically designed for low heritability traits such as cancer and provides robust heritability estimates under different genetic architectures. BAGHERA-based analysis of 38 cancers reported in the UK Biobank showed that SNPs explain at least 10% of the heritable risk for 14 of them, including late onset malignancies. We then identified 1,146 genes, called cancer heritability genes (CHG), explaining a significant proportion of cancer heritability. CHGs were involved in hallmark processes controlling the transformation from normal to cancerous cells. Importantly, 60 of them also harbored somatic driver mutations, and 27 are tumor suppressors. Our results suggest that germline and somatic mutation information could be exploited to identify subgroups of individuals at higher risk of cancer in the broader population and could prove useful to establish strategies for early detection and cancer surveillance. Significance: This study describes a new statistical method to identify genes associated with cancer heritability in the broader population, creating a map of the heritable cancer genome with gene-level resolution. See related commentary by Bader, p. 2586
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".