MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The role of DNA repair in nitrogen mustard drug resistance

2002· review· en· W2329169495 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnti-Cancer Drugs · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRAD51Nitrogen mustardDNA repairDNA damageDNAHomologous recombinationCancer researchBiologyHomologous chromosomeChemistryGeneticsGeneChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nitrogen mustards are an important class of DNA cross-linking agents, which are utilized in the treatment of many types of cancer. Unfortunately, resistance often develops in the treatment of patients and the tumor either never responds to or becomes refractory to these agents. Resistance to the nitrogen mustards in murine and human tumor cells has been reported to be secondary to alterations in (i) the transport of these agents, (ii) their reactivity, (iii) apoptosis and (iv) altered DNA repair activity. In the present review, we will discuss the role of DNA repair in nitrogen mustard resistance in cancer. The nitrogen mustards' lethality is based on the induction of DNA interstrand cross-links (ICLs). Two DNA repair pathways are known to be involved in removal of ICLs: non-homologous DNA end-joining (NHEJ) and Rad51-related homologous recombinational repair (HRR). The reports discussed here lead us to hypothesize that low NHEJ activity defines a hypersensitive state, while high NHEJ activity, along with increased HRR activity, contributes to the resistant state in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Studies on human epithelial tumor cell lines suggest that HRR rather than NHEJ plays a role in nitrogen mustard sensitivity.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.259 · 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