The Role of Stress Proteins in Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of therapeutic resistance, after hormone or chemotherapy for example, is the underlying basis for most cancer deaths. Exposure to anticancer therapies induces expression of many stress related proteins, including small heat shock proteins (HSPs). HSPs interact with various client proteins to assist in their folding and enhance the cellular recovery from stress, thus restoring protein homeostasis and promoting cell survival. The vents of cell stress and cell death are linked, as the induction of molecular chaperones appears to function at key regulatory points in the control of apoptosis. On the basis of these observations and on the role of molecular chaperones in the regulation of steroid receptors, kinases, caspases, and other protein remodelling events involved in chromosome replication and changes in cell structure, it is not surprising that molecular chaperones have been implicated in the control of cell growth and in resistance to various anticancer treatments that induce apoptosis. Recently, several molecular chaperones such as Clusterin and HSP27 have been reported to be involved in development and progression of hormone-refractory prostate cancer. In this review, we address some of the molecular and cellular events initiated by treatment induced stress, and discuss the potential role of chaperone proteins as targets for prostate cancer treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".