Motive and opportunity: <i>MYC</i> rearrangements in high-grade B-cell lymphoma with <i>MYC</i> and <i>BCL2</i> rearrangements (an LLMPP study)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Rearrangements that place the oncogenes MYC, BCL2, or BCL6 adjacent to superenhancers are common in mature B-cell lymphomas. Lymphomas with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or high-grade morphology with both MYC and BCL2 rearrangements are classified as high-grade B-cell lymphoma with MYC and BCL2 rearrangements ("double hit"; HGBCL-DH-BCL2) and are associated with aggressive disease and poor outcomes. Although it is established that MYC rearrangements involving immunoglobulin (IG) loci are associated with inferior outcomes relative to those involving other non-IG superenhancers, the frequency of and mechanisms driving IG vs non-IG MYC rearrangements have not been elucidated. Here, we used custom targeted capture and/or whole-genome sequencing to characterize oncogene rearrangements across 883 mature B-cell lymphomas including Burkitt lymphoma, follicular lymphoma, DLBCL, and HGBCL-DH-BCL2 tumors. We demonstrate that, although BCL2 rearrangement topology is consistent across entities, HGBCL-DH-BCL2 have distinct MYC rearrangement architecture relative to tumors with single MYC rearrangements or with both MYC and BCL6 rearrangements (HGBCL-DH-BCL6), including both a higher frequency of non-IG rearrangements and different architecture of MYC::IGH rearrangements. The distinct MYC rearrangement patterns in HGBCL-DH-BCL2 occur on the background of high levels of somatic hypermutation across MYC partner loci in HGBCL-DH-BCL2, creating more opportunity to form these rearrangements. Furthermore, because 1 IGH allele is already disrupted by the existing BCL2 rearrangement, the MYC rearrangement architecture in HGBCL-DH-BCL2 likely reflects selective pressure to preserve both BCL2 and B-cell receptor expression. These data provide new mechanistic explanations for the distinct patterns of MYC rearrangements observed across different lymphoma entities.
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) | 0.002 | 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".