MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386641880 · doi:10.1093/narcan/zcad047

Large-scale phenogenomic analysis of human cancers uncovers frequent alterations affecting SMC5/6 complex components in breast cancer

2023· article· en· W4386641880 on OpenAlexafffund
Shamayita Roy, Arvin Zaker, Arvind Singh Mer, Damien D’Amours

Bibliographic record

VenueNAR Cancer · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchJ.P. Bickell Foundation
KeywordsBiologyBreast cancerGenome instabilityContext (archaeology)CancerGeneticsChromosome instabilityGenomicsGeneCancer researchGenomeChromosomeDNA damageDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer cells often experience large-scale alterations in genome architecture because of DNA damage and replication stress. Whether mutations in core regulators of chromosome structure can also lead to cancer-promoting loss in genome stability is not fully understood. To address this question, we conducted a systematic analysis of mutations affecting a global regulator of chromosome biology -the SMC5/6 complex- in cancer genomics cohorts. Analysis of 64 959 cancer samples spanning 144 tissue types and 199 different cancer genome studies revealed that the SMC5/6 complex is frequently altered in breast cancer patients. Patient-derived mutations targeting this complex associate with strong phenotypic outcomes such as loss of ploidy control and reduced overall survival. Remarkably, the phenotypic impact of several patient mutations can be observed in a heterozygous context, hence providing an explanation for a prominent role of SMC5/6 mutations in breast cancer pathogenesis. Overall, our findings suggest that genes encoding global effectors of chromosome architecture can act as key contributors to cancer development in humans.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.652
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNAR CancerSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207