Germline-mediated immunoediting sculpts breast cancer subtypes and metastatic proclivity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cancer represents a broad spectrum of molecularly and morphologically diverse diseases. Individuals with the same clinical diagnosis can have tumors with drastically different molecular profiles and clinical response to treatment. It remains unclear when these differences arise during disease course and why some tumors are addicted to one oncogenic pathway over another. Somatic genomic aberrations occur within the context of an individual’s germline genome, which can vary across millions of polymorphic sites. An open question is whether germline differences influence somatic tumor evolution. Interrogating 3,855 breast cancer lesions, spanning pre-invasive to metastatic disease, we demonstrate that germline variants in highly expressed and amplified genes influence somatic evolution by modulating immunoediting at early stages of tumor development. Specifically, we show that the burden of germline-derived epitopes in recurrently amplified genes selects against somatic gene amplification in breast cancer. For example, individuals with a high burden of germline-derived epitopes in ERBB2, encoding human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), are significantly less likely to develop HER2-positive breast cancer compared to other subtypes. The same holds true for recurrent amplicons that define four subgroups of ER-positive breast cancers at high risk of distant relapse. High epitope burden in these recurrently amplified regions is associated with decreased likelihood of developing high risk ER-positive cancer. Tumors that overcome such immune-mediated negative selection are more aggressive and demonstrate an “immune cold” phenotype. These data show the germline genome plays a previously unappreciated role in dictating somatic evolution. Exploiting germline-mediated immunoediting may inform the development of biomarkers that refine risk stratification within breast cancer subtypes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".