MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755504648 · doi:10.1139/bcb-2017-0183

miR-96 targets <i>SOX6</i> and promotes proliferation, migration, and invasion of hepatocellular carcinoma

2017· article· en· W2755504648 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhengwei Li, Ying Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicroRNA in disease regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHepatocellular carcinomamicroRNACell growthOncogeneWestern blotCancer researchBiologyCell cultureCellMTT assayCell migrationWound healingMolecular biologyImmunologyCell cycleGeneBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research suggested that microRNA 96 (miR-96) might function as an oncogene in several types of cancers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to probe into the mechanism of miR-96 in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cells. HCC tissues and non-tumorous tissues, HCC cell lines, and healthy cell lines were all involved in this study. Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) and Western blot were used to detect miR-96 and SOX6 mRNA and protein expressions. The direct regulation of miR96 on SOX6 was confirmed by luciferase reporter assays. Cell proliferation and growth were determined by MTT (3-(4,5-dimethyl-2-thiazolyl)-2,5-diphenyl-2-H-tetrazolium bromide) assay and colony formation assay. Wound healing and transwell assay were employed for migration and invasion analyses. Finally, SPSS 21.0 and GraphPad 7.0 were applied for statistical analyses. In HCC tissues, miR-96 was highly expressed while SOX6 was lowly expressed. The overexpression of miR-96 reversely inhibited the expression of SOX6, contributing to the promotion of the biological functions of HCC cells. miR-96 could promote cell proliferation, migration, and invasion in HCC by targeting SOX6.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicMicroRNA in disease regulationFrench-language works237,207