The enigmatic oncogene and tumor suppressor‐like properties of RAD54B: Insights into genome instability and cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the major challenges to the cell is to ensure genome stability, which can be compromised through endogenous errors or exogenous DNA damaging agents, such as ionizing radiation or common chemotherapeutic agents. To maintain genome stability the cell has a multifaceted line of defense, including cell cycle checkpoints and DNA damage repair pathways. RAD54B is involved in many of these pathways and thus exhibits a role in maintaining and repairing genome stability following DNA damage. RAD54B is involved in cell cycle regulation after DNA damage and participates in homologous recombinational repair, which ensures the precise repair of the most deleterious DNA lesions, double-stranded breaks. This review focuses on structural aspects of RAD54B, molecular functions associated with its cellular roles in preventing genome instability, and how aberrant function contributes to oncogenesis. By understanding how aberrant RAD54B expression and/or function can contribute to oncogenesis, novel therapeutic approaches that specifically exploit these aberrant genetics are now being explored for precision medicine targeting. RAD54B represents an ideal candidate for synthetic genetic therapeutic approaches (synthetic dosage lethality or synthetic lethality), which are designed to target the specific genetics associated with cancer formation. These therapeutic approaches represent a precision-based approach, which is ideal as we are now entering the era of precision medicine.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".