MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775732789 · doi:10.24870/cjb.2017-a212

Inferring the function of genes based on recurrent mutations in protein domains: Analysis of OncoMD data

2017· article· en· W2775732789 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anila K. Karippal, Ashna Mary Jacob, Aparna Mohan, Neenu Abraham, Elizabeth Varghese, Abhijith M. Kumar, Rohit Gupta, Amitabha Chaudhuri

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Biotechnology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneGeneticsFunction (biology)Computational biologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protein domains are conserved structural and functional units of proteins. We have used OncoMD data to analyse recurrent mutations in protein domains and their functional impact. In this study, we systematically analysed tumour samples from 28 different cancer groups to identify recurrent mutations, their positions within specific domains to identify domains that harbour recurrent mutations in different cancers. Next, we mapped the mutations to protein domains present in oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes and identified a variety of domains that are enriched for mutations. Whereas kinase domain and p53 superfamily domains are significantly mutated across many cancers, few cancers, such as melanoma, brain and colorectal cancers are significantly mutated in 7-transmembrane domain and Ig superfamily domain proteins. Highly mutated protein domains such as the PKc and PI3K superfamily are targets of anti-cancer drugs. Inferring the functional impact of recurrent mutations in cancer is an important objective of cancer genomics. Analysis of mutation hotspots in protein domains and its functional impact will provide novel insights into disease mechanisms and breakthrough therapeutics for treatment.

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 score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BiotechnologySame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207