Abstract PR013: Detecting pairwise and higher-order antagonistic epistatic effects among somatic cancer genotypes to discover synthetic lethality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The mutual exclusivity of somatic variants in cancer suggests that current somatic variants can exert antagonistic epistatic effects on the selection of new mutations, contributing to a complex landscape of evolutionary trajectories. However, quantifying pairwise and higher-order epistatic effects—which are essential to estimation of the trajectory of likely cancer genotypes—has been a challenge. We have developed a continuous-time Markov chain model that enables the estimation of mutation origination and fixation, dependent on somatic cancer genotype. We coupled the continuous-time Markov chain model with an approach that deconvolutes the underlying mutation rates and selection intensities across trajectories of oncogenesis. By elucidating the routes of variant evolution and the strengths of selective forces at play, our approach lays the groundwork for quantifying antagonistic epistatic effects of specific somatic genotypes. We applied our approach to report the variant mutation rates, selection intensities, and consequent substitution rates for lung adenocarcinoma, comparing smoker and nonsmoker tumor cohorts. We describe the distinct influences of smoking on underlying mutation rates and on physiology affecting the selective regime of lung tissue. Inference of the most likely routes of site-specific variant evolution, as well as estimation of the selection strength operating on each step along the route represents a key component for prioritization, development, and implementation of personalized cancer therapies that target synthetic lethality. Citation Format: Jorge A. Alfaro-Murillo, Krishna Dasari, Jeffrey P. Townsend. Detecting pairwise and higher-order antagonistic epistatic effects among somatic cancer genotypes to discover synthetic lethality [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Expanding and Translating Cancer Synthetic Vulnerabilities; 2024 Jun 10-13; Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2024;23(6 Suppl):Abstract nr PR013.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".