MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885365056 · doi:10.1038/s42003-018-0114-7

Proliferative heterogeneity of murine epithelial cells in the adult mammary gland

2018· article· en· W2885365056 on OpenAlexafffund
Mona Shehata, Paul Waterhouse, Alison E. Casey, Hui Fang, Lee Hazelwood, Rama Khokha

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEstrous cycleMammary glandCell cycleBiologyMenstrual cycleEndocrinologyGATA3Cell growthInternal medicineCancerBreast cancerCell biologyCancer researchAndrologyHormoneGeneMedicineGeneticsTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Breast cancer is the most common cancer in females. The number of years menstruating and length of an individual menstrual cycle have been implicated in increased breast cancer risk. At present, the proliferative changes within an individual reproductive cycle or variations in the estrous cycle in the normal mammary gland are poorly understood. Here we use Fucci2 reporter mice to demonstrate actively proliferating mammary epithelial cells have shorter G1 lengths, whereas more differentiated/non-proliferating cells have extended G1 lengths. We find that cells enter into the cell cycle mainly during diestrus, yet the expansion is erratic and does not take place every reproductive cycle. Single cell expression analyses feature expected proliferation markers ( Birc5, Top2a ), while HR+ luminal cells exhibit fluctuations of key differentiation genes ( ER, Gata3 ) during the cell cycle. We highlight the proliferative heterogeneity occurring within the normal mammary gland during a single-estrous cycle, indicating that the mammary gland undergoes continual dynamic proliferative changes.

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 score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations52
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207