MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4282929179 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2022-2228

Abstract 2228: A multi-omic perspective of how selection shapes blood cancer risk phenotypes in aging populations

2022· article· en· W4282929179 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kimberly Skead, David Soave, Marie-Julie Favé, Vanessa Bruat, Quaid Morris, Philip Awadalla

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDiseaseCancerSomatic cellGenotypingSelection (genetic algorithm)GeneticsGermline mutationLinkage disequilibriumEvolutionary biologyGenotypeMutationSingle-nucleotide polymorphismMedicineGeneInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The genetic architecture of blood is highly complex with germline polymorphisms, somatic point mutations, and larger chromosomal alterations playing a role in shaping the fitness of the immune cells. Many advances have been made in understanding how the age associated acquisition of point mutations and somatic structural variants (SSVs) in blood, termed Age-Related Clonal Hematopoiesis (ARCH), predispose individuals to hematological cancer or cardiovascular disease. Yet, ARCH is commonly observed in healthy individuals and our ability to predict who is at risk of progressing to disease remains limited. A previous study which integrated deep learning and population genetics methods to evaluate the complex interplay of selection on point mutations in deeply sequenced blood samples highlighted the role that negative selection plays in prevention progression to hematological cancer. Here, we interrogate the mutational and selective pressures within blood to better understand how the full spectrum of somatic changes within an individual impact clonal fitness and disease outcomes. We evaluate how selection shapes the prevalence of large somatic structural variation in blood sampled from 15,910 individuals across over 20 different genetic ancestries, including the Thousand Genomes Study and the Canadian Partnership for Tomorrow’s Health study. Using dense genotyping arrays, we capture SSVs among 20 populations and find that ARCH attributed to somatic structural variation is three times as high as previously reported with up to 14% of individuals harbouring at least one large SSV in their blood. We estimate the rate at which SSVs accrue in blood cells and find that selection impacts the size and frequency of SSVs within individual blood populations. To determine the functional impact of clonal mutations on molecular phenotypes, we investigate the relationship between structural variation and the transcriptome. We show that gains, losses and copy number neutral variants impact gene expression distinctly, with stabilizing selection shaping the penetrance of copy number alterations in gene expression. Our work shows how different classes of selection shape clonal dynamics in blood thus enabling us to better understand why certain individuals are at a high risk of malignancy. Citation Format: Kimberly Skead, David Soave, Marie-Julie Fave, Vanessa Bruat, Quaid Morris, Philip Awadalla. A multi-omic perspective of how selection shapes blood cancer risk phenotypes in aging populations [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr 2228.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→