Steroid Receptor RNA Activator Protein (SRAP): a potential new prognostic marker for estrogen receptor-positive/node-negative/younger breast cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The steroid receptor RNA activator is a functional RNA suspected to participate in the mechanisms underlying breast tumor progression. This RNA is also able to encode for a protein, Steroid Receptor RNA Activator Protein (SRAP), whose exact function remains to be determined. Our aim was to assess, in a large breast cancer cohort, whether levels of this protein could be associated with outcome or established clinical parameters. METHODS: Following antibody validation, SRAP expression was assessed by tissue-microarray (TMA) analysis of 372 breast tumors. Clinical follow-up and parameters such as steroid receptor and node status were available for all the corresponding cases. Immunohistochemical scores were independently determined by three investigators and averaged. Statistical analyses were performed using standard univariate and multivariate tests. RESULTS: SRAP levels were significantly (Mann-Whitney rank sum test, P < 0.05) higher in estrogen receptor-alpha positive (ER+, n = 271), in progesterone receptor positive (PR+, n = 257) and in older patients (age > 64 years, n = 182). When considering ER+ tumors, PR+ tumors, or younger patients (< or = 64 years), cases with high SRAP expression had a significantly (Mantel-Cox test, P < 0.05) worse breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) than those with low SRAP levels. SRAP also appeared as a very powerful indicator of poor prognostic for BCSS in the subset of ER+, node negative and young breast cancer patients (Cox regression analysis, n = 60, BCSS Hazard Ratio = 8.61, P < 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that SRAP levels might provide additional information on potential risk of recurrence and negative outcome in a specific set of patients with otherwise good prognosis when considering only estrogen receptor and nodal status.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".