MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773342423 · doi:10.1016/j.stemcr.2017.11.002

Breast Cancers Activate Stromal Fibroblast-Induced Suppression of Progenitors in Adjacent Normal Tissue

2017· article· en· W2773342423 on OpenAlexafffund
Sumanta Chatterjee, Pratima Basak, Edward W. Buchel, Janice R. Safneck, Leigh C. Murphy, Michael Mowat, Sam K. P. Kung, Peter Eirew, Connie J. Eaves, Afshin Raouf

Bibliographic record

VenueStem Cell Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of ManitobaResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyBC Cancer AgencyCancerCare Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteResearch Manitoba
KeywordsBiologyStromal cellProgenitor cellCancer researchFibroblastEpitheliumCell growthBreast cancerCell biologyCancerCell cultureStem cellGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human breast cancer cells are known to activate adjacent "normal-like" cells to enhance their own growth, but the cellular and molecular mechanisms involved are poorly understood. We now show by both phenotypic and functional measurements that normal human mammary progenitor cells are significantly under-represented in the mammary epithelium of patients' tumor-adjacent tissue (TAT). Interestingly, fibroblasts isolated from TAT samples showed a reduced ability to support normal EGF-stimulated mammary progenitor cell proliferation in vitro via their increased secretion of transforming growth factor β. In contrast, TAT fibroblasts promoted the proliferation of human breast cancer cells when these were co-transplanted in immunodeficient mice. The discovery of a common stromal cell-mediated mechanism that has opposing growth-suppressive and promoting effects on normal and malignant human breast cells and also extends well beyond currently examined surgical margins has important implications for disease recurrence and its prevention.

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 score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStem Cell ReportsSame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207