Characterizing the breast cancer lipidome and its interaction with the tissue microbiota
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most diagnosed cancer amongst women worldwide. We have previously shown that there is a breast microbiota which differs between women who have breast cancer and those who are disease-free. To better understand the local biochemical perturbations occurring with disease and the potential contribution of the breast microbiome, lipid profiling was performed on non-tumor breast tissue collected from 19 healthy women and 42 with breast cancer. Here we identified unique lipid signatures between the two groups with greater amounts of lysophosphatidylcholines and oxidized cholesteryl esters in the tissue from women with breast cancer and lower amounts of ceramides, diacylglycerols, phosphatidylcholines, and phosphatidylethanolamines. By integrating these lipid signatures with the breast bacterial profiles, we observed that Gammaproteobacteria and those from the class Bacillus, were negatively correlated with ceramides, lipids with antiproliferative properties. In the healthy tissues, diacylglyerols were positively associated with Acinetobacter, Lactococcus, Corynebacterium, Prevotella and Streptococcus. These bacterial groups were found to possess the genetic potential to synthesize these lipids. The cause-effect relationships of these observations and their contribution to disease patho-mechanisms warrants further investigation for a disease afflicting millions of women around the world.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".