MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409635121 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2025-6715

Abstract 6715: Cross-species investigation of gene copy number and cancer resistance

2025· article· en· W4409635121 on OpenAlexaff
Morla Phan, Thompson Worden, Sarah J. Adamowicz, Stéphane Lair, Mauricio Seguel, Claire M. Jardine, Geoffrey A. Wood, Dirk Steinke

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneCancerBiologyGeneticsMedicineComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low cancer incidence rates are observed in large mammals such as elephants and whales, despite their mass and long lifespan hypothetically contributing to a higher lifetime probability of acquiring oncogenic mutations. Few studies have investigated cancer-related genes in these animals. One reported that bowhead whales possess two functional copies of PCNA. Multiple studies have investigated the presence of multiple retrogene copies of TP53 in elephants. Extra copies of genes involved in DNA damage detection and repair could contribute to cancer resistance. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) was used to quantify gene copy number for TP53, PCNA, HER2, DLG1, and DLG2 in genomic DNA extracted from frozen skin samples of beluga, narwhal and bowhead whales (n=20 each). Results showed that all 3 whale species had more than one copy of PCNA. Agarose gel PCR showed the simultaneous presence of wild-type PCNA (possessing introns) and variable numbers of pseudogene sequences (lacking introns) within individuals for belugas, narwhals, and bowheads. ddPCR found that elephants did not have increased PCNA copy number, but agarose gel PCR showed the presence of PCNA pseudogenes. Similar patterns were also observed in rhinos, horses, cows and other ungulate species. To investigate copy number loss in cancer, ddPCR was performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded normal and matched tumor tissue of 7 individual belugas from the St. Lawrence estuary, an area that was historically contaminated with industrial carcinogens. Copy number loss was not observed for any investigated tumor suppressor gene in tumor tissue compared to normal tissue. Our results show that bowhead whales are not unique in having multiple copies of PCNA. The presence of incomplete copies with unknown function may influence copy number quantification. Further study is required to understand the significance of the variable PCNA pseudogene copies. Understanding natural copy number variation in tumor suppressor genes may provide insight into risk factors and prevention methods across species. Citation Format: Morla Phan, Thompson Worden, Sarah Adamowicz, Stéphane Lair, Mauricio Seguel, Claire Jardine, Geoffrey Wood, Dirk Steinke. Cross-species investigation of gene copy number and cancer resistance [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 6715.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.354 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207