MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2086283917 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.am2013-88

Abstract 88: Comparative tumorigenesis of progranulin and fibroblast growth factor 4 and in adrenocortical carcinoma cells.

2013· article· en· W2086283917 on OpenAlexaff
Yonghua Zhang, Amin Ismail, Andrew Bateman

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAdrenocortical carcinomaCarcinogenesisTranscriptomeCancer researchFibroblast growth factorCell growthCancer cellCell biologyCancerGene expressionEndocrinologyGeneGeneticsReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Adrenal carcinomas are almost always fatal, but the mechanisms that influence transition from low malignancy adenomas to metastatic carcinomas are ill defined. SW-13 adrenocortical carcinoma cells are not tumorigenic in nude mice and do not support anchorage-independent growth at low cell density unless stimulated by secreted forms of fibroblast growth factors (FGF) family, such as FGF4, or the growth factor-like proteins progranulin (PGRN) which is over produced by many cancers. This growth factor-dependent acquisition of tumorigenesis may model the transition from benign to malignant adrenocortical cancer. Both PGRN and FGF4 were shown to stimulate phosphorylation of MEK1/2 in SW-13 cells. The aim of this study is to investigate the tumorigenic mechanisms of PGRN and FGF, in particular to identify “core” malignancy responses shared by both tumorigenic pathways. We employed Affymetrix Human Genome U133A microarrays to examine the transcriptome profiles in SW-13 cells with elevated PGRN or FGF4. We employed Ingenuity Pathway Analysis (IPA®) to visualize differentially expressed genes in the context of biological pathways. In SW-13 cells with elevated PGRN, those transcripts that were significantly up-regulated were related to cell morphology, cellular assembly and organization, nervous system development and function, carbohydrate metabolism, molecular transport. In cells with elevated FGF4, significantly up-regulated molecules were associated with lipid metabolism, molecular transport, small molecule biochemistry, cell death. 80 transcripts that were up-regulated in common by FGF and PGRN were identified, and were significantly associated with gene expression, cell death, cellular development. 28 of those genes were related to cancer, including nuclear factor of kappa light polypeptide gene enhancer in B-cells inhibitor, alpha, v-rel reticuloendotheliosis viral oncogene homolog (avian), BCL2-associated X protein, early growth response 4, nuclear factor of kappa light polypeptide gene enhancer in B-cells 2 (p49/p100), etc. 65 FGF and PGRN common down-regulated genes were identified, and were significantly associated with reproductive system development and function, cellular development, cellular growth and proliferation. We found, however, that the majority of genes were regulated differentially between PGRN and FGF. Our results suggest that PGRN and FGF4 share common signals which contribute to tumorgenesis, but also reveal that the common malignant phenotype attributed to both PGRN and FGF4 differs significantly at the transcriptional level suggesting unique pathways linking PGRN and FGF to tumor progression in these cells. Citation Format: Yonghua Zhang, Amin Ismail, Andrew Bateman. Comparative tumorigenesis of progranulin and fibroblast growth factor 4 and in adrenocortical carcinoma cells. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2013 Apr 6-10; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2013;73(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 88. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2013-88

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Research→Same topicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism→French-language works237,207→