Epigenetic reprogramming of a distal developmental enhancer cluster drives <i>SOX2</i> overexpression in breast and lung adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhancer reprogramming has been proposed as a key source of transcriptional dysregulation during tumorigenesis, but the molecular mechanisms underlying this process remain unclear. Here, we identify an enhancer cluster required for normal development that is aberrantly activated in breast and lung adenocarcinoma. Deletion of the SRR124-134 cluster disrupts expression of the SOX2 oncogene, dysregulates genome-wide transcription and chromatin accessibility and reduces the ability of cancer cells to form colonies in vitro. Analysis of primary tumors reveals a correlation between chromatin accessibility at this cluster and SOX2 overexpression in breast and lung cancer patients. We demonstrate that FOXA1 is an activator and NFIB is a repressor of SRR124-134 activity and SOX2 transcription in cancer cells, revealing a co-opting of the regulatory mechanisms involved in early development. Notably, we show that the conserved SRR124 and SRR134 regions are essential during mouse development, where homozygous deletion results in the lethal failure of esophageal-tracheal separation. These findings provide insights into how developmental enhancers can be reprogrammed during tumorigenesis and underscore the importance of understanding enhancer dynamics during development and disease.
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) | 0.001 | 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".