MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404360817 · doi:10.3324/haematol.2024.286513

Germline genetics, disease, and exposure to medication influence longitudinal dynamics of clonal hematopoiesis

2024· article· en· W4404360817 on OpenAlexaff
Taralynn Mack, Yash Pershad, Caitlyn Vlasschaert, Cosmin A. Bejan, J. Brett Heimlich, Yajing Li, Nicole A. Mickels, Joseph C. Van Amburg, Jessica Ulloa, Alexander J. Silver, Leo Y. Luo, Angela Jones, P. Brent Ferrell, Ashwin Kishtagari, Yaomin Xu, Michael R. Savona, Alexander G. Bick

Bibliographic record

VenueHaematologica · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthAlexander and Margaret Stewart Trust
KeywordsGermlineGeneticsDiseaseBiologyHaematopoiesisSomatic evolution in cancerMedicineInternal medicineStem cellCancerGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Germline genetics, disease, and exposure to medication influence longitudinal dynamics of clonal hematopoiesisClonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) occurs when a hematopoietic stem cell acquires a somatic driver mutation in a leukemia-associated gene, with a variant allele fraction (VAF) exceeding 2% in peripheral blood. 1 Higher VAF is associated with increased morbidity and mortality risk.[2][3][4][5] Identifying factors influencing clonal expansion rate is crucial for risk stratification in CHIP patients.Recent cost-effective targeted assays have enabled serial sequencing and longitudinal profiling of CHIP dynamics.6 We present the largest longitudinal analysis of CHIP mutational dynamics to-date, examining 3,000 individuals from the Vanderbilt BioVU biobank.Our findings reveal that CHIP growth rates vary significantly by driver gene and are influenced by germline variants and medication exposures.Additionally, we demonstrate that monitoring blood counts may be more informative for risk stratification than frequent resequencing in CHIP patients.We performed targeted, error-corrected sequencing on serial blood samples from 3,000 individuals in the Vanderbilt BioVU biobank, using custom-designed probes for 22 CHIP-associated genes (Online Supplementary Table S1; Online Supplementary Figure S1).Vanderbilt University Medical Center's Institutional Review Board oversees BioVU and approved this project (IRB #201783).Unique molecular identifiers (UMI) were used for error correction, excluding mutations detected from a single UMI.The mean coverage depth was 1,725x after de-duplication.CHIP mutations were called for variants with ≥100x total read depth, ≥3 variant allele reads, and >2% VAF in at least one blood draw.We identified 893 CHIP mutations in 711 individuals (Figure 1A).Participants' mean age at first draw was 70 years (range, 19-96), with a mean 5.7-year interval (range, 0.7-13) between samples.Mean VAF were 6.7% and 9.5% at first and second draws, respectively.Most individuals (79%) had a single CHIP mutation, 16% had two, and 4% had three or more (Figure 1B).DNMT3A and TET2 were the most frequently mutated genes.Of the 711 individuals, 74% had CHIP at both time points, while 26% had >2% VAF at only one draw, predominantly (78%) at the second draw.We modeled the growth rate r with a compound interest formula -1.SRSF2/SF3B1 (splicing factor) driver mutations exhibited the fastest average growth rate (~25% annually), while DNMT3A driver mutations showed the slowest rate (~7% annually) (Figure 1C).Seventy-eight percent of mutations increased in VAF (annual growth rate >1%), consistent with prior studies.5,7 Decreases in VAF (annual growth rate <-1%) were observed in 30% of

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaematologicaSame topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207