3D genomic analysis reveals novel enhancer-hijacking caused by complex structural alterations that drive oncogene overexpression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer genomes are composed of many complex structural alterations on chromosomes and extrachromosomal DNA (ecDNA), making it difficult to identify non-coding enhancer regions that are hijacked to activate oncogene expression. Here, we describe a 3D genomics-based analysis called HAPI (Highly Active Promoter Interactions) to characterize enhancer hijacking. HAPI analysis of HiChIP data from 34 cancer cell lines identified enhancer hijacking events that activate both known and potentially novel oncogenes such as MYC, CCND1, ETV1, CRKL, and ID4. Furthermore, we found enhancer hijacking among multiple oncogenes from different chromosomes, often including MYC, on the same complex amplicons such as ecDNA. We characterized a MYC-ERBB2 chimeric ecDNA, in which ERBB2 heavily hijacks MYC's enhancers. Notably, CRISPRi of the MYC promoter led to increased interaction of ERBB2 with MYC enhancers and elevated ERBB2 expression. Our HAPI analysis tool provides a robust strategy to detect enhancer hijacking and reveals novel insights into oncogene activation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".