The role of aberrant DNA methylation in cancer initiation and clinical impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epigenetic alterations, including aberrant DNA methylation, are now recognized as bone fide hallmarks of cancer, which can contribute to cancer initiation, progression, therapy responses and therapy resistance. Methylation of gene promoters can have a range of impacts on cancer risk, clinical stratification and therapeutic outcomes. We provide several important examples of genes, which can be silenced or activated by promoter methylation and highlight their clinical implications. These include the mismatch DNA repair genes MLH1 and MSH2, homologous recombination DNA repair genes BRCA1 and RAD51C, the TERT oncogene and genes within the P15/P16/RB1/E2F tumour suppressor axis. We also discuss how these methylation changes might occur in the first place – whether in the context of the CpG island methylator phenotype or constitutional DNA methylation. The choice of assay used to measure methylation can have a significant impact on interpretation of methylation states, and some examples where this can influence clinical decision-making are presented. Aberrant DNA methylation patterns in circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) are also showing great promise in the context of non-invasive cancer detection and monitoring using liquid biopsies; however, caution must be taken in interpreting these results in cases where constitutional methylation may be present. Thus, this review aims to provide researchers and clinicians with a comprehensive summary of this broad, but important subject, illustrating the potentials and pitfalls of assessing aberrant DNA methylation in 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".