MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1593048925 · doi:10.1139/o08-107

ING function in apoptosis in diverse model systemsThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled CSBMCB’s 51st Annual Meeting – Epigenetics and Chromatin Dynamics, and has undergone the Journal’s usual peer review process.

2009· review· en· W1593048925 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sitar Shah, Heather Smith, Xiaolan Feng, Derrick E. Rancourt, Karl Riabowol

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsApoptosisBiologyEpigeneticsChromatinDownregulation and upregulationProgrammed cell deathCell biologyXenopusFunction (biology)GeneticsCancer researchDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic studies in model organisms have shown that programmed cell death (apoptosis) plays a significant role during development, where a deficiency in apoptosis results in severe and diverse diseases. Dysregulation of apoptosis also contributes to a variety of human diseases, such as cancer and autoimmune diseases. ING family proteins (ING1-ING5) are involved in many cellular processes, and appear to play a significant role in apoptosis. Loss or downregulation of ING protein function is frequently observed in different tumour types, many of which are resistant to apoptosis, thus warranting their classification as type II tumour suppressors. Several different in vitro and in vivo models have explored the role of ING proteins in regulating apoptosis. In this review, we discuss the progress that has been made in understanding ING protein function in apoptosis using in vitro studies and Mus musculus, Xenopus laevis, and Caenorhabditis elegans experimental models, with an emphasis on ING1 and ING3.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations31
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207