Disentangling oncogenic amplicons in esophageal adenocarcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esophageal adenocarcinoma is a prominent example of cancer characterized by frequent amplifications in oncogenes. However, the mechanisms leading to amplicons that involve breakage-fusion-bridge cycles and extrachromosomal DNA are poorly understood. Here, we use 710 esophageal adenocarcinoma cases with matched samples and patient-derived organoids to disentangle complex amplicons and their associated mechanisms. Short-read sequencing identifies ERBB2, MYC, MDM2, and HMGA2 as the most frequent oncogenes amplified in extrachromosomal DNAs. We resolve complex extrachromosomal DNA and breakage-fusion-bridge cycles amplicons by integrating of de-novo assemblies and DNA methylation in nine long-read sequenced cases. Complex amplicons shared between precancerous biopsy and late-stage tumor, an enrichment of putative enhancer elements and mobile element insertions are potential drivers of complex amplicons' origin. We find that patient-derived organoids recapitulate extrachromosomal DNA observed in the primary tumors and single-cell DNA sequencing capture extrachromosomal DNA-driven clonal dynamics across passages. Prospectively, long-read and single-cell DNA sequencing technologies can lead to better prediction of clonal evolution in esophageal adenocarcinoma.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".