The Effect of a DNA Repair Gene on Cellular Invasiveness: Xrcc3 Over-Expression in Breast Cancer Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over-expression of DNA repair genes has been associated with resistance to radiation and DNA-damage induced by chemotherapeutic agents such as cisplatin. More recently, based on the analysis of genome expression profiling, it was proposed that over-expression of DNA repair genes enhances the invasive behaviour of tumour cells. In this study we present experimental evidence utilizing functional assays to test this hypothesis. We assessed the effect of the DNA repair proteins known as X-ray complementing protein 3 (XRCC3) and RAD51, to the invasive behavior of the MCF-7 luminal epithelial-like and BT20 basal-like triple negative human breast cancer cell lines. We report that stable or transient over-expression of XRCC3 but not RAD51 increased invasiveness in both cell lines in vitro. Moreover, XRCC3 over-expressing MCF-7 cells also showed a higher tumorigenesis in vivo and this phenotype was associated with increased activity of the metalloproteinase MMP-9 and the expression of known modulators of cell-cell adhesion and metastasis such as CD44, ID-1, DDR1 and TFF1. Our results suggest that in addition to its' role in facilitating repair of DNA damage, XRCC3 affects invasiveness of breast cancer cell lines and the expression of genes associated with cell adhesion and invasion.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".