Regional mutational signature activities in cancer genomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer genomes harbor a catalog of somatic mutations. The type and genomic context of these mutations depend on their causes and allow their attribution to particular mutational signatures. Previous work has shown that mutational signature activities change over the course of tumor development, but investigations of genomic region variability in mutational signatures have been limited. Here, we expand upon this work by constructing regional profiles of mutational signature activities over 2,203 whole genomes across 25 tumor types, using data aggregated by the Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) consortium. We present GenomeTrackSig as an extension to the TrackSig R package to construct regional signature profiles using optimal segmentation and the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm. We find that 426 genomes from 20 tumor types display at least one change in mutational signature activities (changepoint), and 306 genomes contain at least one of 54 recurrent changepoints shared by seven or more genomes of the same tumor type. Five recurrent changepoint locations are shared by multiple tumor types. Within these regions, the particular signature changes are often consistent across samples of the same type and some, but not all, are characterized by signatures associated with subclonal expansion. The changepoints we found cannot strictly be explained by gene density, mutation density, or cell-of-origin chromatin state. We hypothesize that they reflect a confluence of factors including evolutionary timing of mutational processes, regional differences in somatic mutation rate, large-scale changes in chromatin state that may be tissue type-specific, and changes in chromatin accessibility during subclonal expansion. These results provide insight into the regional effects of DNA damage and repair processes, and may help us localize genomic and epigenomic changes that occur during cancer development.
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".