MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Diurnal rhythms (DR) in gene expression in human oral mucosa: Implications for gender differences in toxicity, response and survival and optimal timing of targeted therapy (Rx)

2007· article· en· W2544767777 on OpenAlexaff
Georg A. Bjarnason, Arun Seth, Z. Wang, Nick Blanas, Martin Straume, Tami A. Martino

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicCircadian rhythm and melatonin
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreToronto General HospitalSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLOCKTimelessCircadian rhythmGeneMicroarray analysis techniquesMicroarrayGene expressionBiologyCircadian clockRhythmMedicineGeneticsInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2507 Background: DR in processes relevant to oncology, including cell cycle, apoptosis, and angiogenesis, have been demonstrated (Nat Rev Cancer 3:350, Cancer Res 63:7277). In rodents, 10–20% of the genome has a 24-hour (h) rhythm in RNA expression (Cell 109:307). A molecular clock consisting of transcription/translation feedback loops of clock-genes controls this rhythmicity (Nat Rev Neurosci 4:649). We studied, for the first time, daily whole genome RNA expression patterning in healthy human volunteers. Methods: RNA samples extracted from oral mucosa biopsies (bx) obtained every 4h over 24h (6 bx) from 5 males (M) and 5 females (F) were subjected to microarray analysis (Affymetrix HG_U133_Plus2 chip, 54,679 transcripts). COSOPT, designed for circadian microarray time series analysis (Methods Enzymol 383: 149) was used to detect genes with significant rhythms (pMMC-Beta = 0.1). Expression patterns were visualized in GeneSpring GX7.3 (Agilent) and validated by real-time PCR and ANOVA. Results: There were 801 and 810 rhythmic genes in M and F respectively, with most genes peaking at 4AM or 4PM in M but at 6AM or 11AM in F. Only 90 rhythmic genes (including core clock-genes and clock controlled genes) were common to M and F, with over 700 genes only rhythmic in M and not in F and vice versa. The profiles of clock- genes and clock-controlled genes were inverted relative to the nocturnal rodent data. There were 75 and 67 rhythmic transcription factor genes in M and F respectively, with 28 common to both M and F. There were 71 rhythmic human cancer genes (Nat Rev Cancer 4:177) with significant gender differences. This group includes rhythmic gene products involved in signaling pathways currently targeted for cancer Rx. Conclusions: We show for the first time a significant gender specific DR in gene expression involving multiple genes of interest in oncology. This may contribute to the documented gender differences in toxicity, response and survival (J Clin Onc 24: 3562, NEJM 353:133), and can inform future trials of optimal timing of antisense Rx and other targeted Rx. The inverted DR in rodents vs. humans has implications for translating rodent data to human Rx trials. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.288
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCircadian rhythm and melatonin→French-language works237,207→