Lumican and decorin are differentially expressed in human breast carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies have shown that lumican is expressed and increased in the stroma of breast tumours. Lumican expression has now been examined relative to other members of the small leucine-rich proteoglycan gene family in normal and neoplastic breast tissues, to begin to determine its role in breast tumour progression. Western blot study showed that lumican protein is highly abundant relative to decorin, while biglycan and fibromodulin are only detected occasionally in breast tissues (n=15 cases). Further analysis of lumican and decorin expression performed in matched normal and tumour tissues by in situ hybridization showed that both mRNAs were expressed by similar fibroblast-like cells adjacent to epithelium. However, lumican mRNA expression was significantly increased in tumours (n=34, p<0.0001), while decorin mRNA was decreased (p=0.0002) in neoplastic relative to adjacent normal stroma. This was accompanied by a significant increase in lumican protein (n=12, p=0.0122), but not decorin. Further evidence of altered lumican expression in breast cancer was manifested by discordance between lumican mRNA and protein localization in some regions of tumours but not in adjacent morphologically normal tissues. It is concluded that lumican is the most abundant of these proteoglycans in breast tumours and that lumican and decorin are inversely regulated in association with breast tumourigenesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".