MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

IQGAP2 Displays Tumor Suppression Functions

2015· article· en· W1820797023 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yanyun Xie, Anil Kapoor, Hao Peng, Jean‐Claude Cutz, Lijian Tao, Damu Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Analytical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIQGAP1CarcinogenesisWnt signaling pathwayScaffold proteinContext (archaeology)BiologyGeneticsCancer researchCell biologyComputational biologyCancerSignal transduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The IQGAP family consists of evolutionarily conserved scaffold proteins, IQGAP1, IQGAP2, and IQGAP3. IQGAP1 is 62 and 59% identical at the level of amino acid sequence to IQGAP2 and IQGAP3, respectively. IQGAPs possess the same domain structure with the individual motifs being highly homologous among IQGAPs. The conservation is even higher between IQGAP1 and IQGAP2. While the WW domain is 30% identical, other four motifs are 70 to 93% identical between both IQGAPs. Despite the high level identity, IQGAP1 and IQGAP2 display opposite impact on tumorigenesis. IQGAP1 is the most thoroughly examined, and clearly promotes cancer formation via its scaffold functions in facilitating the Raf-Mek-Erk and Wnt signalling. On the other hand, IQGAP2 is much less investigated and suppresses tumorigenesis. We will review the evidence that supports IQGAP2 reducing tumorigenesis, discuss its tumour suppression in the context of our updated knowledge on IQGAP1, and outline some future directions. Our emphasis will be placed on prostate cancer.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
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
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Analytical OncologySame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207