Adenomas from individuals with pathogenic biallelic variants in the <i>MUTYH</i> and <i>NTHL1</i> genes demonstrate base excision repair tumour mutational signature profiles similar to colorectal cancers, expanding potential diagnostic and variant classification applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Colorectal cancers (CRCs) from people with biallelic germline likely pathogenic/pathogenic variants in MUTYH or NTHL1 exhibit specific single base substitution (SBS) mutational signatures, namely combined SBS18 and SBS36 (SBS18+SBS36), and SBS30, respectively. The aim was to determine if adenomas from biallelic cases demonstrated these mutational signatures at diagnostic levels. Methods Whole-exome sequencing of FFPE tissue and matched blood-derived DNA was performed on 9 adenomas and 15 CRCs from 13 biallelic MUTYH cases, on 7 adenomas and 2 CRCs from 5 biallelic NTHL1 cases and on 27 adenomas and 26 CRCs from 46 non-hereditary (sporadic) participants. All samples were assessed for COSMIC v3.2 SBS mutational signatures. Results In biallelic MUTYH cases, SBS18+SBS36 signature proportions in adenomas (mean±standard deviation, 65.6%±29.6%) were not significantly different to those observed in CRCs (76.2%±20.5%, p-value =0.37), but were significantly higher compared with non-hereditary adenomas (7.6%±7.0%, p-value =3.4x10 -4 ). Similarly, in biallelic NTHL1 cases, SBS30 signature proportions in adenomas (74.5%±9.4%) were similar to those in CRCs (78.8%±2.4%) but significantly higher compared with non-hereditary adenomas (2.8%±3.6%, p-value =5.1x10 -7 ). Additionally, a compound heterozygote with the c.1187G>A p.(Gly396Asp) pathogenic variant and the c.533G>C p.(Gly178Ala) variant of unknown significance (VUS) in MUTYH demonstrated high levels of SBS18+SBS36 in four adenomas and one CRC, providing evidence for reclassification of the VUS to pathogenic. Conclusions SBS18+SBS36 and SBS30 were enriched in adenomas at comparable proportions observed in CRCs from biallelic MUTYH and biallelic NTHL1 cases, respectively. Therefore, testing adenomas may improve the identification of biallelic cases and facilitate variant classification, ultimately enabling opportunities for CRC prevention.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".