MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014484442 · doi:10.1139/o08-113

The role of INI1/hSNF5 in gene regulation and cancerThis 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· W2014484442 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Angelina Stojanova, Linda Z. Penn

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Cancer InstituteUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsChromatinChromatin remodelingEpigeneticsNucleosomeContext (archaeology)BiologyCell biologyHistoneDNAGeneGeneticsComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The precise modulation of chromatin dynamics is an essential and complex process that ensures the integrity of transcriptional regulation and prevents the transition of a normal cell into a cancerous one. ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling enzymes are multisubunit complexes that play a pivotal role in this operation through the mobilization of nucleosomes to promote DNA accessibility. Chromatin remodeling is mediated by the interaction of DNA-binding factors and individual members of this complex, directing its targeted recruitment to specific regulatory regions. In this review, we discuss a core subunit of the SWI/SNF ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling complex, known as INI1/hSNF5, in the context of transcriptional regulation and impact on cancer biology. In particular, we review current knowledge of the diverse protein interactions between INI1/hSNF5 and viral and cellular factors, with a special emphasis on the potent oncogene c-Myc.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207