More is less: Inactivation and deletion events and the search for tumor suppressor genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tumor suppressor genes are frequently inactivated in cancer by large-scale deletion events or epigenetic silencing, and experimental demonstration of such inactivation has historically been considered as support for assigning tumor suppressive function to a given gene. However, the discovery of a number of chromosomal domains wherein large deletions naturally occur at frequencies up to 100 times the average for the genome as a whole leads us to reevaluate the significance of sporadic deletions found within genes associated with these hotspots. Similarly, our recent demonstration that epigenetic chromatin silencing frequently spreads in cancer cells from gene-poor into gene-rich regions with apparent indifference to the gene content of the affected domain raises questions about the pertinence of inactivation as a criterion for ascribing tumor suppressor function to a given gene. We suggest that a number of putative suppressor genes for which inactivation and/or deletion events have been documented may simply be victims of collateral damage when these events occur, and the implication that these genes are being selected against during cancer progression should in some cases be reassessed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".