IQGAP2 Displays Tumor Suppression Functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".