Genetic variations of DNA bindings of FOXA1 and co-factors in breast cancer susceptibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying transcription factors (TFs) whose DNA bindings are altered by genetic variants that regulate susceptibility genes is imperative to understand transcriptional dysregulation in disease etiology. Here, we develop a statistical framework to analyze extensive ChIP-seq and GWAS data and identify 22 breast cancer risk-associated TFs. We find that, by analyzing genetic variations of TF-DNA bindings, the interaction of FOXA1 with co-factors such as ESR1 and E2F1, and the interaction of TFs with chromatin features (i.e., enhancers) play a key role in breast cancer susceptibility. Using genetic variants occupied by the 22 TFs, transcriptome-wide association analyses identify 52 previously unreported breast cancer susceptibility genes, including seven with evidence of essentiality from functional screens in breast relevant cell lines. We show that FOXA1 and co-factors form a core TF-transcriptional network regulating the susceptibility genes. Our findings provide additional insights into genetic variations of TF-DNA bindings (particularly for FOXA1) underlying breast cancer susceptibility.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".