Polymorphisms in the Nonhomologous End-joining DNA Repair Pathway are Associated with HPV Integration in Cervical Dysplasia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous evidence indicates that human papillomavirus (HPV) integration status may be associated with cervical cancer development and progression. However, host genetic variation within genes that may play important roles in the viral integration process is understudied. The aim of this study was to examine the association between HPV16 and HPV18 viral integration status and SNPs in nonhomologous-end-joining (NHEJ) DNA repair pathway genes on cervical dysplasia. Women enrolled in two large trials of optical technologies for cervical cancer detection and positive for HPV16 or HPV18 were selected for HPV integration analysis and genotyping. Associations between SNPs and cytology (normal, low-grade, or high-grade lesions) were evaluated. Among women with cervical dysplasia, polytomous logistic regression models were used to evaluate the effect of each SNP on viral integration status. Of the 710 women evaluated [149 high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL), 251; low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL, 310 normal)], 395 (55.6%) were positive for HPV16 and 192 (27%) were positive for HPV18. Tag-SNPs in 13 DNA repair genes, including RAD50, WRN, and XRCC4, were significantly associated with cervical dysplasia. HPV16 integration status was differential across cervical cytology, but overall, most participants had a mix of both episomal and integrated HPV16. Four tag-SNPs in the XRCC4 gene were found to be significantly associated with HPV16 integration status. Our findings indicate that host genetic variation in NHEJ DNA repair pathway genes, specifically XRCC4, are significantly associated with HPV integration, and that these genes may play an important role in determining cervical cancer development and progression. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: HPV integration in premalignant lesions and is thought to be an important driver of carcinogenesis. However, it is unclear what factors promote integration. The use of targeted genotyping among women presenting with cervical dysplasia has the potential to be an effective tool in assessing the likelihood of progression to cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".