MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170918501 · doi:10.1517/14728222.8.5.473

Regulation of MMP-9 gene expression for the development of novel molecular targets against cancer and inflammatory diseases

2004· review· en· W2170918501 on OpenAlexaff
Yves St‐Pierre, Julie Couillard, Céline Van Themsche

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtease and Inhibitor Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMatrix metalloproteinaseGene expressionInflammationBiologyCancerBioinformaticsComputational biologySignal transductionRegulation of gene expressionCancer researchGeneCell biologyImmunologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need to pharmacologically control the proteolytic activity of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) has been commonly acknowledged, despite its limited efficacy in clinical trials. Among the reasons that explain this failure is our limited understanding of the signals that control the expression of MMPs in different cell types during different pathological conditions. Thus, future therapies must rely on more selective approaches. With the continually increasing body of proof implicating MMPs in a large number of diseases, it has become a priority to establish the pertinence of molecules involved in the signalling pathways leading to the expression of these enzymes. MMP-9 is a case in point: its dramatic overexpression in cancer and various inflammatory conditions clearly points to the molecular mechanisms controlling its expression as a potential target for eventual rational therapeutic intervention. In this article, recent progress in the signalling pathways that regulate MMP-9 expression is reviewed, and the latest strategies to be considered in the search for a specific inhibitor of its expression are presented.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.471
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations69
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Therapeutic TargetsSame topicProtease and Inhibitor MechanismsFrench-language works237,207