MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388284237 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adh3083

Mutational processes of tobacco smoking and APOBEC activity generate protein-truncating mutations in cancer genomes

2023· article· en· W4388284237 on OpenAlexafffund
Nina Adler, Alexander T. Bahcheli, Kevin Cheng, Khalid N. Al‐Zahrani, Mykhaylo Slobodyanyuk, Diogo Pellegrina, Daniel Schramek, Jüri Reimand

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersTerry Fox Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of OntarioCancer Research Society
KeywordsAPOBECGeneticsBiologyCarcinogenesisGenomeCancerCancer researchGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mutational signatures represent a genomic footprint of endogenous and exogenous mutational processes through tumor evolution. However, their functional impact on the proteome remains incompletely understood. We analyzed the protein-coding impact of single-base substitution (SBS) signatures in 12,341 cancer genomes from 18 cancer types. Stop-gain mutations (SGMs) (i.e., nonsense mutations) were strongly enriched in SBS signatures of tobacco smoking, APOBEC cytidine deaminases, and reactive oxygen species. These mutational processes alter specific trinucleotide contexts and thereby substitute serines and glutamic acids with stop codons. SGMs frequently affect cancer hallmark pathways and tumor suppressors such as TP53 , FAT1 , and APC . Tobacco-driven SGMs in lung cancer correlate with smoking history and highlight a preventable determinant of these harmful mutations. APOBEC-driven SGMs are enriched in YTCA motifs and associate with APOBEC3A expression. Our study exposes SGM expansion as a genetic mechanism by which endogenous and carcinogenic mutational processes directly contribute to protein loss of function, oncogenesis, and tumor heterogeneity.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations22
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207