Co-expression in tissue-specific gene networks links genes in cancer-susceptibility loci to known somatic driver genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The genetic background of cancer remains complex and challenging to integrate. Many somatic mutations within genes are known to cause and drive cancer, while genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cancer have revealed many germline risk factors associated with cancer. However, the overlap between known somatic driver genes and positional candidate genes from GWAS loci is surprisingly small. We hypothesised that genes from multiple independent cancer GWAS loci should show tissue-specific co-regulation patterns that converge on cancer-specific driver genes. RESULTS: We studied recent well-powered GWAS of breast, prostate, colorectal and skin cancer by estimating co-expression between genes and subsequently prioritising genes that show significant co-expression with genes mapping within susceptibility loci from cancer GWAS. We observed that the prioritised genes were strongly enriched for cancer drivers defined by COSMIC, IntOGen and Dietlein et al. The enrichment of known cancer driver genes was most significant when using co-expression networks derived from non-cancer samples of the relevant tissue of origin. CONCLUSION: We show how genes within risk loci identified by cancer GWAS can be linked to known cancer driver genes through tissue-specific co-expression networks. This provides an important explanation for why seemingly unrelated sets of genes that harbour either germline risk factors or somatic mutations can eventually cause the same type of disease.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".