Breast cancer risk SNPs converge on estrogen receptor binding sites commonly shared between breast tumors to locally alter estrogen signalling output
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estrogen Receptor alpha (ERα) is the main driver and prime drug target in luminal breast. ERα chromatin binding is extensively studied in cell lines and a limited number of human tumors, using consensi of peaks shared among samples. However, little is known about inter-tumor heterogeneity of ERα chromatin action, along with its biological implications. Here, we use a large set of ERα ChIP-seq data from 70 ERα+ breast cancers to explore inter-patient heterogeneity in ERα DNA binding, to reveal a striking inter-tumor heterogeneity of ERα action. Interestingly, commonly-shared ERα sites showed the highest estrogen-driven enhancer activity and were most-engaged in long-range chromatin interactions. In addition, the most-commonly shared ERα-occupied enhancers were enriched for breast cancer risk SNP loci. We experimentally confirm SNVs to impact chromatin binding potential for ERα and its pioneer factor FOXA1. Finally, in the TCGA breast cancer cohort, we could confirm these variations to associate with differences in expression for the target gene. Cumulatively, we reveal a natural hierarchy of ERα-chromatin interactions in breast cancers within a highly heterogeneous inter-tumor ERα landscape, with the most-common shared regions being most active and affected by germline functional risk SNPs for breast 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".