MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168406738 · doi:10.1517/13543784.10.12.2157

Therapeutic potential of mycobacterial cell wall-DNA complexes

2001· review· en· W2168406738 on OpenAlexaff
Nigel C. Phillips, Mario Filion

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Investigational Drugs · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMycobacterium research and diagnosis
Canadian institutionsBioPhage Pharma (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCell wallCellEffectorApoptosisBiologyDNACell divisionImmune systemMechanism of actionCell growthMycobacteriumCancer cellMycobacterium phleiCancer researchMicrobiologyCancerChemistryCell biologyBacteriaImmunologyIn vitroBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cell wall skeletons isolated from many bacteria have been shown to possess anticancer activity. The anticancer activities of such preparations have been attributed to the activation of immune effector cells and not to a direct effect on cancer cell division. A cell wall extract from Mycobacterium phlei, wherein mycobacterial DNA in the form of short oligonulceotides is preserved to the cell wall, has anticancer activity against a wide range of cancer cells. Mycobacterial cell wall-DNA complexes (MCC) exert their anticancer activity by a dual mechanism of action: an indirect effect via the induction of anticancer cytokines and a direct effect on cancer cell division mediated by the induction of apoptosis. In this review, the immunomodulatory and the pro-apoptotic mechanisms of action of MCC will be explored. The identification of the active component in MCC will be discussed, as well as the composition differences with cell wall skeletons and live mycobacteria. Finally, the use of MCC against bladder and prostate cancers will be discussed and compared to standard therapies, particularly therapy using mycobacteria and mycobacteria-derived products.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.292 · 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.

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

Citations45
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Investigational DrugsSame topicMycobacterium research and diagnosisFrench-language works237,207