MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2260494368 · doi:10.1016/j.bbcan.2016.04.001

Epigenetic silencing of tumor suppressor genes: Paradigms, puzzles, and potential

2016· review· en· W2260494368 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna Kazanets, Tatiana Shorstova, Khalid Hilmi, Maud Marques, Michael Witcher

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation du cancer du sein du Québec
KeywordsEpigeneticsBiologyGene silencingReprogrammingDNA methylationSuppressorGeneticsGeneTranscription factorTumor suppressor geneComputational biologyCancer researchCarcinogenesisGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer constitutes a set of diseases with heterogeneous molecular pathologies. However, there are a number of universal aberrations common to all cancers, one of these being the epigenetic silencing of tumor suppressor genes (TSGs). The silencing of TSGs is thought to be an early, driving event in the oncogenic process. With this in consideration, great efforts have been made to develop small molecules aimed at the restoration of TSGs in order to limit tumor cell proliferation and survival. However, the molecular forces that drive the broad epigenetic reprogramming and transcriptional repression of these genes remain ill-defined. Undoubtedly, understanding the molecular underpinnings of transcriptionally silenced TSGs will aid us in our ability to reactivate these key anti-cancer targets. Here, we describe what we consider to be the five most logical molecular mechanisms that may account for this widely observed phenomenon: 1) ablation of transcription factor binding, 2) overexpression of DNA methyltransferases, 3) disruption of CTCF binding, 4) elevation of EZH2 activity, 5) aberrant expression of long non-coding RNAs. The strengths and weaknesses of each proposed mechanism is highlighted, followed by an overview of clinical efforts to target these processes.

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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 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

Citations200
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on CancerSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207