MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132106503 · doi:10.1155/2012/473712

Production of Adenosine by Ectonucleotidases: A Key Factor in Tumor Immunoescape

2012· review· en· W2132106503 on OpenAlexfundno aff
François Ghiringhelli, Mélanie Bruchard, Fanny Chalmin, Cédric Rébé

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdenosine and Purinergic Signaling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National Du CancerMinistère de l'Enseignement Supérieur et de la RechercheLigue Contre le CancerFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleCNIB
KeywordsAdenosineImmunosurveillanceStromal cellCancer researchImmune systemTumor microenvironmentDephosphorylationPurinergic signallingCancer cellChemistryCancerCell biologyBiologyImmunologyMedicineAdenosine receptorBiochemistryPhosphorylationInternal medicinePhosphataseReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is now well known that tumor immunosurveillance contributes to the control of cancer growth. Many mechanisms can be used by cancer cells to avoid the antitumor immune response. One such mechanism relies on the capacity of cancer cells or more generally of the tumor microenvironment to generate adenosine, a major molecule involved in antitumor T cell response suppression. Adenosine is generated by the dephosphorylation of extracellular ATP released by dying tumor cells. The conversion of ATP into adenosine is mediated by ectonucleotidase molecules, namely, CD73 and CD39. These molecules are frequently expressed in the tumor bed by a wide range of cells including tumor cells, regulatory T cells, Th17 cells, myeloid cells, and stromal cells. Recent evidence suggests that targeting adenosine by inhibiting ectonucleotidases may restore the resident antitumor immune response or enhance the efficacy of antitumor therapies. This paper will underline the impact of adenosine and ectonucleotidases on the antitumor response.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.281
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 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

Citations109
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biomedicine and BiotechnologySame topicAdenosine and Purinergic SignalingFrench-language works237,207