Enhancer-promoter hubs organize transcriptional networks promoting oncogenesis and drug resistance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in high-resolution mapping of spatial interactions among regulatory elements support the existence of complex topological assemblies of enhancers and promoters known as enhancer-promoter hubs or cliques. Yet, organization principles of these multi-interacting enhancer-promoter hubs and their potential role in regulating gene expression in cancer remains unclear. Here, we systematically identified enhancer-promoter hubs in breast cancer, lymphoma, and leukemia. We found that highly interacting enhancer-promoter hubs form at key oncogenes and lineage-associated transcription factors potentially promoting oncogenesis of these diverse cancer types. Genomic and optical mapping of interactions among enhancer and promoter elements further showed that topological alterations in hubs coincide with transcriptional changes underlying acquired resistance to targeted therapy in T cell leukemia and B cell lymphoma. Together, our findings suggest that enhancer-promoter hubs are dynamic and heterogeneous topological assemblies with the potential to control gene expression circuits promoting oncogenesis and drug resistance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".