MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1522186213 · doi:10.1111/bph.12885

<scp>DNA</scp>demethylation and invasive cancer: implications for therapeutics

2014· review· en· W1522186213 on OpenAlexafffund
David Cheishvili, Lisa Boureau, Moshe Szyf

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Pharmacology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchCanada Research ChairsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDNA methylationEpigeneticsDemethylating agentCancer researchGene silencingCancerSuppressorMetastasisBiologyGeneDNA demethylationTumor suppressor geneCancer epigeneticsMethylationCancer cellGeneticsCarcinogenesisGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the hallmarks of cancer is aberrant DNA methylation, which is associated with abnormal gene expression. Both hypermethylation and silencing of tumour suppressor genes as well as hypomethylation and activation of prometastatic genes are characteristic of cancer cells. As DNA methylation is reversible, DNA methylation inhibitors were tested as anticancer drugs with the idea that such agents would demethylate and reactivate tumour suppressor genes. Two cytosine analogues, 5-azacytidine (Vidaza) and 5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine, were approved by the Food and Drug Administration as antitumour agents in 2004 and 2006 respectively. However, these agents might cause activation of a panel of prometastatic genes in addition to activating tumour suppressor genes, which might lead to increased metastasis. This poses the challenge of how to target tumour suppressor genes and block cancer growth with DNA-demethylating drugs while avoiding the activation of prometastatic genes and precluding the morbidity of cancer metastasis. This paper reviews current progress in using DNA methylation inhibitors in cancer therapy and the potential promise and challenges ahead.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations116
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of PharmacologySame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207