Network-based approach to identify principal isoforms among four cancer types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein isoforms are structurally similar proteins produced by alternative splicing of a single gene or genes from the same family. Isoforms of a protein can perform the same, similar, or even opposite biological functions. A previous study identified principal isoforms of proteins based on the extent of interactions per isoform in a functional relationship network, focusing on data from normal tissues. Additionally, the expression levels of specific isoforms of various genes associated with tumorigenesis and prognosis are frequently altered in tumors compared with those in normal tissues. In this study, we aimed to identify higher degree isoforms (HDIs) of multi-isoform genes (MIGs) in cancer by applying a meta-analytical framework to calculate co-expression between each pair of isoforms in two large datasets of RNA-seq profiles from breast cancer, lung cancer, leukemia, and colon cancer cell lines. Then, we compared HDIs with isoforms identified by proteomic data and prognostic and predictive evidence in various cancers. In addition, we separately analyzed the associations between HDIs and non-HDIs (nHDIs) of the same genes according to transcript expression and drug responses in various cancer type cell lines. Collectively, these results indicated the complex properties of HDIs per gene identified by cancer type-based isoform-isoform co-expression networks and showed the potential of HDIs as novel therapeutic targets for cancer 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".