MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031530131 · doi:10.1182/blood-2013-01-478834

The E3 ubiquitin ligase UBR5 is recurrently mutated in mantle cell lymphoma

2013· article· en· W2031530131 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara Meissner, Robert Kridel, Raymond S. Lim, Sanja Rogić, Kane Tse, David W. Scott, Richard A. Moore, Marco A. Marra, Joseph M. Connors, Christian Steidl, Randy D. Gascoyne

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMantle cell lymphomaUbiquitin ligaseBiologyDNA ligaseLymphomaGeneticsUbiquitin-Protein LigasesCancer researchUbiquitinGeneImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have recently reported the application of RNAseq to mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) transcriptomes revealing recurrent mutations in NOTCH1. Here we describe the targeted resequencing of 18 genes mutated in this discovery cohort using a larger cohort of MCL tumors. In addition to frequent mutations in ATM, CCND1, TP53, and NOTCH1, mutations were also observed recurrently in MEF2B, TRAF2, and TET2. Interestingly, the third most frequently mutated gene was UBR5, a gene encoding a 2799aa protein, with multiple functions, including E3 ligase activity based on a conserved cysteine residue at the C-terminus. Nonsynonymous mutations were detected in 18% (18/102) of tumors, with 61% of the mutations resulting in frameshifts in, or around, exon 58, predicted to result in the loss of this conserved cysteine residue. The recurrence and clustering of deleterious mutations implicate UBR5 mutations as a critical pathogenic event in a subgroup of MCL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations142
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207