MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2989908439 · doi:10.3390/cancers11121911

Immunological Effects of Epigenetic Modifiers

2019· review· en· W2989908439 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lucillia Bezu, Alejandra Wu Chuang, Peng Liu, Guido Kroemer, Oliver Kepp

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Cancer ResearchLabex Immuno-OncologyChancellerie des Universités de ParisCancéropôle Ile de FranceBristol-Myers Squibb FoundationInstitut Universitaire de FranceLigue Contre le CancerFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleInstitut National Du CancerInstitut National de la Santé et de la Recherche MédicaleAgence Nationale de la RechercheE-RareFondation LeducqEuropean CommissionAssociation pour la Recherche sur le CancerBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsEpigeneticsChromatinDNA methylationHistoneMethyltransferaseCancer epigeneticsBiologyEpigenetic regulation of neurogenesisCarcinogenesisAcetylationCancer researchChromatin remodelingEpigenetic therapyHistone methyltransferaseMethylationCancerDNAGeneticsGene expressionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epigenetic alterations are associated with major pathologies including cancer. Epigenetic dysregulation, such as aberrant histone acetylation, altered DNA methylation, or modified chromatin organization, contribute to oncogenesis by inactivating tumor suppressor genes and activating oncogenic pathways. Targeting epigenetic cancer hallmarks can be harnessed as an immunotherapeutic strategy, exemplified by the use of pharmacological inhibitors of DNA methyltransferases (DNMT) and histone deacetylases (HDAC) that can result in the release from the tumor of danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) on one hand and can (re-)activate the expression of tumor-associated antigens on the other hand. This finding suggests that epigenetic modifiers and more specifically the DNA methylation status may change the interaction of chromatin with chaperon proteins including HMGB1, thereby contributing to the antitumor immune response. In this review, we detail how epigenetic modifiers can be used for stimulating therapeutically relevant anticancer immunity when used as stand-alone treatments or in combination with established immunotherapies.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207