MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115514668 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2011.12.004

Long Telomeres Bypass the Requirement for Telomere Maintenance in Human Tumorigenesis

2012· article· en· W2115514668 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael A. S. Taboski, David Sealey, Jennifer Dorrens, Chandrakant Tayade, Dean H. Betts, Lea Harrington

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of HealthCure Brain Cancer FoundationWellcome Trust
KeywordsTelomereTelomeraseCarcinogenesisTelomerase reverse transcriptaseBiologyGenome instabilityCancer researchCell biologyCancerDNA damageGeneticsDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the importance of telomere maintenance in cancer cell survival via the elongation of telomeres by telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT) or alternative lengthening of telomeres (ALT), it had not been tested directly whether telomere maintenance is dispensable for human tumorigenesis. We engineered human tumor cells containing loxP-flanked hTERT to enable extensive telomere elongation prior to complete hTERT excision. Despite unabated telomere erosion, hTERT-excised cells formed tumors in mice and proliferated in vitro for up to 1 year. Telomerase reactivation or ALT was not observed, and the eventual loss of telomeric signal coincided with loss of tumorigenic potential and cell viability. Crisis was averted via the reintroduction of active but not inactive hTERT. Thus, telomere maintenance is dispensable for human tumorigenesis when telomere reserves are long. Yet, despite telomere instability and the presence of oncogenic RAS, human tumors remain susceptible to crisis induced by critically short telomeres.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceFrench-language works237,207