Investigating the relationship between melatonin patterns and methylation in circadian genes among day shift and night shift workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives Mechanisms underlying the carcinogenicity of night shift work remain uncertain. One compelling yet understudied cancer mechanism may involve altered DNA methylation in circadian genes due to melatonin secretion patterns. The objective of this study was to explore the relationship between melatonin secretion patterns and circadian gene methylation among day and night shift workers. Methods Female healthcare employees (n=38 day workers, n=36 night shift workers) for whom we had urinary 6-sulfatoxymelatonin secretion data from a previous study were recontacted. New blood samples were collected and used to measure methylation levels at 1150 CpG loci across 22 circadian genes using the Illumina Infinium MethylationEPIC beadchip. Linear regression was used to examine the association between melatonin (acrophase and mesor) and M values for each CpG site (false discovery rate, q=0.2), while testing for effect modification by shift work status. Results Among night shift workers, a higher mesor (24 hours of mean production of melatonin) was associated with increased methylation in the body ofRORA(q=0.02) and decreased methylation in the putative promoter region ofMTNR1A(q=0.03). Later acrophase (ie, time of peak concentration) was associated with increased methylation in the putative promoter region ofMTNR1A(q=0.20) and decreased methylation in the body ofPER3(q=0.20). No associations were identified among day workers. Conclusions In conclusion, patterns in melatonin secretion were associated with differential circadian gene methylation among night shift workers. Melatonin and alteration of DNA methylation in circadian genes may be one pathway towards increased cancer risk, although larger-scale studies examining multiple time points are needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".