MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105145042 · doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602753

Do septins have a role in cancer?

2005· review· en· W2105145042 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S.E. Hilary Russell, Peter A. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFungal and yeast genetics research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastPathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland
KeywordsSeptinCytokinesisBiologyGeneCell biologyGeneticsMicrotubuleAlternative splicingCell divisionCellGene isoform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Septins are an evolutionarily conserved family of genes that encode a P loop-based GTP-binding domain flanked by a polybasic domain and (usually) a coiled-coil region. They have roles in cytokinesis, vesicle trafficking, polarity determination, and can form membrane diffusion barriers, as well as in microtubule and actin dynamics. Septins can form hetero-oligomeric complexes and possibly function as dynamic protein scaffolds. Recently, it has been shown that there are at least 13 human septin genes that exhibit extensive alternate splicing. There are complex patterns of human septin gene expression and recently it has been found that alterations in septin expression are seen in human diseases including neoplasia. This review summarises the essential properties of septins and outlines the accumulating evidence for their involvement in human neoplasia. Septins may belong to the class of cancer critical genes where alteration in expression profile (including alterations in the spectrum of transcripts expressed) may underpin their role in neoplasia as opposed to specific mutational events.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations97
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicFungal and yeast genetics researchFrench-language works237,207