MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3178543062 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2021-2114

Abstract 2114: Horvath clock as a predictor of cancer risk in LFS patients

2021· article· en· W3178543062 on OpenAlexaff
Małgorzata Pieńkowska, Nardin Samuel, Sanaa Choufani, Vallijah Subasri, Nish Patel, Rosanna Weksberg, Ran Kafri, David Malkin

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsdNaMEpigeneticsDNA methylationCancerOncologyMedicineDiseaseBiomarkerAge of onsetGermline mutationGeneticsInternal medicineBiologyMutationGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS) is an autosomal dominantly inherited cancer predisposition syndrome associated with germline mutations of the TP53 tumor suppressor gene. TP53 mutation carriers are susceptible to a wide range of cancers that occur at strikingly earlier age of onset than their sporadic counterparts. The lifetime cancer risk in TP53 mutation carriers is estimated to be ~73% for males and approaching 100% in females. Although improved survival outcomes have been demonstrated for carriers undergoing intense clinical surveillance, there is continued interest in identifying new environmental, genetic, and epigenetic risk factors that could improve our ability to predict disease onset and outcome. A number of studies have demonstrated age-associated DNA methylation (DNAm) changes at specific CG dinucleotides and that these changes can be combined into epigenetic age predictors to estimate chronological age. Deviation of chronological and predicted age have been associated with age-associated illnesses such as metabolic disease and cancer. For a given chronological age, older epigenetic age is presumed to indicate poorer health. An epigenetic profile defining the DNA methylation age (DNAm age) of an individual has been suggested to be a biomarker of aging, and thus possibly providing a tool for assessment of health and mortality. Our goal was to test whether DNAm age could be a possible predictor of cancer risk in LFS patients. We applied the DNA age calculator (http://dnamage.genetics.ucla.edu/) (Horvath 2013) to DNA methylation profiles derived from lymphocytes extracted from 157 LFS patients' blood samples using the Illumina HumanMethylation450 BeadChip. While a correlation of DNAm age and actual age was observed in both ‘normal' and LFS patients, the latter showed significant deviations (differences between DNAm age and chronological age). Moreover, the extent of deviations seems selectively associated with two distinct age groups (0-5 years and 20-50 years). Remarkably, this bimodal DNAm age profile shows striking resemblance to the epidemiologically characterized age dependency of LFS cancers (Amadou, 2018). Individuals with germline mutant or germline wild-type TP53 and no cancer showed no epigenetic age acceleration whereas individuals who were carriers of mutant TP53 who developed cancer showed accelerated epigenetic aging. Our preliminary results suggest that DNAm age is a dynamic, real-time correlate of patient-specific cancer risk in LFS. Further, the age dependent deviations suggest that the cancer risk profiles derived from Horvath signatures are dynamic and reflect the changes in cancer risk throughout an individual's lifetime, and could be used as a predictor of cancer onset in TP53 mutation carriers. Citation Format: Malgorzata Pienkowska, Nardin Samuel, Sanaa Choufani, Vallijah Subasri, Nish Patel, Rosanna Weksberg, Ran Kafri, David Malkin. Horvath clock as a predictor of cancer risk in LFS patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 2114.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.359 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation→French-language works237,207→