MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2210500005 · doi:10.1038/cddis.2015.376

A minimal ING1b fragment that improves the efficacy of HDAC-based cancer cell killing

2015· article· en· W2210500005 on OpenAlexafffund
Alex Boyko, Karl Riabowol

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Death and Disease · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHistone Deacetylase Inhibitors Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyApoptosisH3K4me3Histone deacetylaseCancer researchEctopic expressionCancer cellHistoneAnnexinProgrammed cell deathCell biologyMolecular biologyCancerCell cultureDNAGeneticsGene expressionPromoterGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ING1b is a type II tumor suppressor that is inactive in a broad range of cancers, many of which show resistance to apoptosis. It is a stoichiometric member of histone deacetylase (HDAC) complexes 1 and targets them to the H3K4Me3 histone mark 2 to regulate transcription. ING1b's effects on transcription are then thought to affect cellular functions relevant to tumorigenesis, including proliferation, senescence and apoptosis. 3 Many independent studies have reported strong pro-apoptotic effects triggered by ectopic expression of ING1b in cancer cells, 4 , 5 , 6 and some studies have suggested that ING1b requires the activity of p53 to effectively induce apoptosis. In a recent study published in Cell Death Discovery by Boyko et al., 7 the minimal polypeptide of ING1b required to efficiently induce apoptosis was defined using a series of deletion mutations followed by different tests to determine their ability to induce cell death. The deletion mutant that showed the greatest apoptotic activity was also tested to determine whether it was able to act synergistically with HDAC inhibitors that target the epigenome, to help define the regions of ING1b that can selectively enhance cancer-cell sensitivity towards cytotoxic agents.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.257 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell Death and DiseaseSame topicHistone Deacetylase Inhibitors ResearchFrench-language works237,207