MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139852843 · doi:10.1093/jnci/93.1.67

RESPONSE: Re: Promoter Methylation and Silencing of the Retinoic Acid Receptor-  Gene in Lung Carcinomas

2001· article· en· W3139852843 on OpenAlexaff
Adi F. Gazdar, S. Zochbauer-Moller, Arvind Virmani, Jonathan M. Kurie, J D Minna, Stephen Lam

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processes
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGene silencingCancer researchMethylationRetinoic acid receptorRetinoic acidGeneBiologyMolecular biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lamy et al. examined short-term cultures of 71 bronchial biopsy specimens (including 30 dysplastic or carcinoma in situ lesions) from 38 subjects with asbestos and/or smoking exposure for aberrant methylation of the RARβ P2 promoter. All samples were negative for methylation of RARβ. However, aberrant promoter methylation of the CDKN2A/p16INK4a gene was present in 18% of the samples. Consequently, Lamy et al. suggest that methylation of RARβ is not an early event in lung carcinogenesis. Our preliminary data, supplemented with indirect published evidence, do not support their conclusions. First, testing for the status of five genes frequently methylated in lung cancers (1), we examined induced sputum specimens from 55 current or former smokers with more than 30 pack-years of exposure. The methylation frequency of RARβ was the highest (27%) (Zöchbauer-Müller S, Lam S, Minna JD, Gazdar AF: unpublished data). We also tested nonmalignant peripheral lung samples from patients with resected NSCLC. The methylation frequency in these samples was 15 (14%) of 104 (1). Of six short-term cell cultures started from nonmalignant bronchial epithelium of patients with resected NSCLC, three were methylated for RARβ (Kurie J, Virmani A, Gazdar AF: unpublished data). Second, Lamy et al. tested for RARβ methylation by using identical primer sequences and an assay similar to ours. Thus, the possible reasons for our very different results need to be discussed. In our experience, even minor changes in methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction assay conditions may result in widely differing methylation frequencies. Assays need to be validated by use of stringent criteria (2). We demonstrated a high concordance between methylation of the RAR P2 promoter and silencing of its specific transcripts (3). Methylation was absent in control tissues from healthy nonsmoking subjects (3). Our unpublished data (Gazdar AF, Virmani A, Toyooka S) indicate that our assay conditions can detect one methylated cell admixed with 1000 unmethylated cells. Thus, we have validated that our assay is both specific and sensitive. Lamy et al. should determine whether RARβ is expressed in their cell cultures. Third, expression of retinoic acid receptors, including RARβ is reduced in the bronchial epithelium of many smokers, and this reduction may be related to the increasing severity of the histologic changes (4,5). High frequencies of allelic loss at the RARβ locus (at chromosome 3p24) have been reported in bronchial preneoplastic lesions (6). Finally, gene silencing by methylation may be temporarily reversed by exposure to demethylating agents. Conversely, if the mechanism of gene silencing of a receptor was via methylation, exposure to its ligand would not be expected to increase expression of the gene. Lamy et al. suggest that retinoids, the ligands for retinoid receptors, may be more suitable than demethylating agents for chemoprevention of lung cancer. Retinoids have been the major or sole therapeutic agent in many lung cancer chemoprevention trials, most of which have reported negative results. Treatment of smokers with 13-cis-retinoic acid reduced the percentage of subjects with decreased (“aberrant”) expression of RARβ in one or more bronchial biopsy specimens from 86% to 63% (5). Thus, retinoid treatment did not reverse aberrant expression of RARβ in most subjects. Exposure to retinoic acid did not restore RARβ expression or inhibit growth of lung cancer cell lines (7). Considered together, these findings are consistent with the concept that methylation, combined with allelic loss, is the major mechanism of decreased RARβ expression in lung cancers and in smoking-damaged bronchial epithelium and peripheral lung tissue. These findings may also explain the disappointing results from clinical trials using retinoids for the chemoprevention of lung cancer.

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: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.005

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicRetinoids in leukemia and cellular processesFrench-language works237,207