MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909315094 · doi:10.15252/embj.2018100330

Transcriptional regulation of normal human mammary cell heterogeneity and its perturbation in breast cancer

2019· review· en· W2909315094 on OpenAlexafffund
Davide Pellacani, Susanna Tan, Sylvain Lefort, Connie J. Eaves

Bibliographic record

VenueThe EMBO Journal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
FundersBC Cancer FoundationCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Society
KeywordsBreast cancerPhenotypeHuman breastBiologyMammary glandCancerCellMammary tumorCancer researchComputational biologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mammary gland in adult women consists of biologically distinct cell types that differ in their surface phenotypes. Isolation and molecular characterization of these subpopulations of mammary cells have provided extensive insights into their different transcriptional programs and regulation. This information is now serving as a baseline for interpreting the heterogeneous features of human breast cancers. Examination of breast cancer mutational profiles further indicates that most have undergone a complex evolutionary process even before being detected. The consequent intra-tumoral as well as inter-tumoral heterogeneity of these cancers thus poses major challenges to deriving information from early and hence likely pervasive changes in potential therapeutic interest. Recently described reproducible and efficient methods for generating human breast cancers de novo in immunodeficient mice transplanted with genetically altered primary cells now offer a promising alternative to investigate initial stages of human breast cancer development. In this review, we summarize current knowledge about key transcriptional regulatory processes operative in these partially characterized subpopulations of normal human mammary cells and effects of disrupting these processes in experimentally produced human breast cancers.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations56
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe EMBO JournalSame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207