MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404919128 · doi:10.1101/2024.11.27.24317972

Combined analysis of chromatin accessibility, promoter interactions and whole genome sequencing solved the missing heritability in gastric cancer

2024· preprint· en· W4404919128 on OpenAlexaff
Celina São José, Marta Ferreira, Augusto Q. Pedro, Janine Senz, J. García-Peláez, Silvana Lobo, Irene Gullo, Ana André, Pardeep Kaurah, Fiona Puntieri, John A. Glaser, David G. Huntsman, Stefan Mundlos, Kasmintan A. Schrader, Carla Roma Oliveira

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesVancouver General HospitalBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeritabilityMissing heritability problemGeneticsCancerChromatinBiologyComputational biologyGenomeGeneGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Missing heritability in hereditary diffuse gastric cancer (HDGC) ranges from 60 to 90%. These HDGC-like families, despite complying with HDGC clinical criteria, lack CDH1 and CTNNA1 actionable germline variants, and are not offered HDGC-targeted life-saving disease prevention measures. Herein, we explored novel HDGC predisposition mechanisms affecting the CDH1 -regulatory network. We called single-nucleotide (SNV) and copy-number variants (CNV) from 19 HDGC-like probands from whole-genome sequencing data and performed gene-ontology analysis. Chromatin enhancer marks and CDH1 promoter interactions were evaluated in normal stomach by ChIP-seq, ATAC-seq and 4C-seq, variant causality was assessed by RT-PCR, immunohistochemistry and microsatellite instability (MSI) analysis in tumours. Functional analysis was performed using CRISPR-Cas9, RT-PCR and flow cytometry in cell lines, and enhancer assays using mouse embryos. Within the CDH1 topologically associating domain (TAD), we found two deletions in Family F4 and F9. F4 carried a heterozygous CDH3 20kb-CNV triggering CDH1 mRNA/protein loss in homozygosity by CRISPR-Cas9 editing, similarly to a CDH1 coding deletion. This 20kb sequence encloses two hypomorphic tissue-specific regulatory elements (REs), each contributing 50% to CDH1 expression regulation. F9 carried a heterozygous 39bp-intergenic CNV downstream of CDH1 , triggering CDH1 mRNA/protein loss by CRISPR-Cas9. F15, presenting gastric but not colorectal cancer, carried an MLH1 heterozygous 2.7Kb germline CNV overlapping a stomach-specific RE found by ChIP-seq. The gastric tumour of mixed histology displayed Microsatellite instability (MSI), reduced MLH1 mRNA and protein, and reduced CDH1 and E-cadherin protein. CRISPR-Cas9 clones mimicking the MLH1 heterozygous CNV, triggered loss of MLH1 and CDH1 /E-cadherin mRNA and protein, similar to a coding deletion. Beyond the CDH1 TAD and tumour risk syndrome genes, multiple deletions of stomach accessible chromatin sequences were found in particularly young-affected individuals from additional 6 families. This oligogenic pattern impaired specifically mucin genes and multiple immune-related pathways. Herein, we pinpointed novel mechanisms behind HDGC predisposition. One involves deletions of CDH1 -REs in the TAD or stomach-specific CDH1 -REs in the MLH1 locus. The second involves multiple deletions of stomach REs affecting mucin and immune-related genes, favouring a gastric immune-deficient phenotype. Altogether, by combining stomach-specific chromatin accessibility and promoter interactions with whole genome sequencing, we solved the missing heritability in 47% of HDGC-like families within our cohort.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicRNA modifications and cancer→French-language works237,207→