MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974201109 · doi:10.4161/cbt.29501

Coronin3 regulates gastric cancer invasion and metastasis by interacting with Arp2

2014· article· en· W1974201109 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yi Sun, Yulong Shang, Gui Ren, Lin Zhou, Bin Feng, Kai Li, Linhong Deng, Jie Liang, Yuanyuan Lu, Xin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Biology & Therapy · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFourth Military Medical UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsMetastasisDownregulation and upregulationEctopic expressionGene knockdownImmunohistochemistryCancer researchMotilityBiologyCell migrationGentamicin protection assayCancerCellCell biologyCell cultureImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coronin3 expression is increased in gastric cancer (GC) tissues and can promote GC invasion and metastasis. However, the mechanisms underlying Coronin3 function in GC remain unclear. In this study, we aimed to explore the interacting molecules essential for the tumor-promoting effects of Coronin3 in GC. Using mass spectrometric analysis, functional studies, and immunohistochemistry, we found that Arp2 interacted with Coronin3, and ectopic expression of Arp2 promoted GC cell migration and invasion, while Arp2 knockdown suppressed whole-cell motility and attenuated the Coronin3-mediated upregulation of cell migration and invasion. In addition, both proteins correlated with the metastatic status of GC patients. Furthermore, survival analyses demonstrated that both Coronin3 and Arp2 correlated with overall GC patient survival, and the combination of Coronin3 and Arp2 most accurately predicted GC patient prognosis. Combined, these data demonstrate that Coronin3 can regulate GC invasion and metastasis through Arp2, and the combination of Coronin3 and Arp2 provides a potential marker for predicting GC prognosis.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Biology & TherapySame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207