MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082718846 · doi:10.4161/cc.6.23.4997

Specific In Vivo Roles for E2Fs in Differentiation and Development

2007· review· en· W2082718846 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly A. McClellan, Ruth S. Slack

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Cycle · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCell cycleContext (archaeology)Retinoblastoma proteinE2FFunction (biology)RetinoblastomaCell biologyCellular differentiationCellNeuroscienceGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

E2Fs have been historically considered as key interacting factors for the retinoblastoma (Rb) family of pocket proteins, acting as universal regulators of cell cycle progression. Often exhibiting overlapping function, deregulated E2F activity is thought to cancer or cell death. While early reports hypothesized that E2Fs may be capable of regulating distinct functions beyond proliferation, several recent reports have characterized increasingly diverse, context dependent functions for different E2Fs in vivo, often in what appears to a manner beyond traditional cell cycle regulation. Ironically, many of these new functions are still mediated through the classical cell cycle regulatory Rb family of interacting factors. Here we review the recent advances, focusing on differentiation and development, to emphasize that E2F function is likely more complex than the simple model suggests, capable of exhibiting both specificity of function, and roles beyond cell cycle progression in vivo.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations67
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell CycleSame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207