MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529097733 · doi:10.1038/srep34490

Insights into cancer severity from biomolecular interaction mechanisms

2016· article· en· W2529097733 on OpenAlexaff
Francesco Raimondi, Gurdeep Singh, Matthew J. Betts, Gordana Apic, Ranka Vukotic, Pietro Andreoné, Lincoln Stein, Robert B. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Institute for Cancer Research
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsNonsynonymous substitutionCancerComputational biologyBiologySomatic cellNucleic acidProtein–protein interactionGeneGeneticsBioinformaticsGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To attain a deeper understanding of diseases like cancer, it is critical to couple genetics with biomolecular mechanisms. High-throughput sequencing has identified thousands of somatic mutations across dozens of cancers, and there is a pressing need to identify the few that are pathologically relevant. Here we use protein structure and interaction data to interrogate nonsynonymous somatic cancer mutations, identifying a set of 213 molecular interfaces (protein-protein, -small molecule or -nucleic acid) most often perturbed in cancer, highlighting several potentially novel cancer genes. Over half of these interfaces involve protein-small-molecule interactions highlighting their overall importance in cancer. We found distinct differences in the predominance of perturbed interfaces between cancers and histological subtypes and presence or absence of certain interfaces appears to correlate with cancer severity.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksFrench-language works237,207