MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162735751 · doi:10.2174/156652306775515538

Targeting DNA Repair Proteins: A Promising Avenue for Cancer Gene Therapy

2006· review· en· W2162735751 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Philippe Belzile, Sibgat Choudhury, Denis Cournoyer, Terry Chow

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Gene Therapy · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA repairHomologous recombinationGenetic enhancementCancerCancer researchBiologyGeneDNACancer cellDNA damageGenome instabilityRadiation therapyMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Enhanced DNA repair in many cancer cells can be correlated to the resistance to cancer treatment, and thus contributes to a poor prognosis. Ionizing radiation and many anti-cancer drugs induce DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs), which are usually regarded as the most toxic types of DNA damages. Repair of DNA DSBs is vital for maintaining genomic stability and hence crucial for survival and propagation of all cellular organisms. Therefore, reducing the capacity of cancer cells to repair DSBs could sensitize tumors to radio/chemotherapy. Many investigators have used gene therapy strategies to down-regulate or inactivate proteins involved in the repair of DSBs in order to reduce the survival of cancer cells. Herein, are reviewed several protein candidates that have been targeted by different gene therapy approaches. Results obtained from in vitro and in vivo experiments are presented and discussed in the perspective of potential gene therapy clinical trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.006

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Gene TherapySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207