Expression of the Circadian Clock Genes Pert, Per2 in Sporadic, Familial Breast Tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing body of evidence implicating aberrant circadian clock expression in the development of cancer. Based on our initial experiments identifying a putative interaction between BRCA1 and the clock proteins Per1 and Per2, as well as the reported involvement of the circadian clock in the development of cancer, we have performed an expression analysis of the circadian clock genes Per1 and Per2 in both sporadic and familial primary breast tumors and normal breast tissues using real-time polymerase chain reaction. Significantly decreased levels of Per1 were observed between sporadic tumors and normal samples (P < .00001), as well as a further significant decrease between familial and sporadic breast tumors for both Per1 (P < .00001) and Per2 (P < .00001). Decreased Per1 was also associated with estrogen receptor negativity (53% vs 15%, P = .04). These results suggest a role for both Per1 and Per2 in normal breast function and show for the first time that deregulation of the circadian clock may be an important factor in the development of familial breast cancer. Aberrant expression of circadian clock genes could have important consequences on the transactivation of downstream targets that control the cell cycle and on the ability of cells to undergo apoptosis, potentially promoting carcinogenesis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".