MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004900156 · doi:10.1002/ijc.32900

Cdc6 as a novel target in cancer: Oncogenic potential, senescence and subcellular localisation

2020· review· en· W3004900156 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nicholas K. Lim, Paul A. Townsend

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Cancer · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council CanadaUniversity of Manchester
KeywordsBiologyCancer researchPancreatic cancerSenescenceKRASContext (archaeology)RegulatorCell biologyCancerGeneticsGeneColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cdc6 is a key replication licencing factor with a pivotal role in regulating the process of DNA replication, rendering it an important investigatory focus in tumourigenesis. Indeed, Cdc6 overexpression has been found to be a feature in certain tumours and has been associated as an early event in malignancies. With a focus on pancreatic cancer, there are evidence of its convergence in downstream pathways implicated in major genetic alterations found in pancreatic cancer, primarily KRAS. There is also data of its direct influence on protumourigenic processes as a transcriptional regulator, repressing the key tumour suppressor loci CDH1 (E-Cadherin) and influencing epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT). Moreover, gene amplification of Cdc6 as well as of E2F (an upstream regulator of Cdc6) have also been found to be a key feature in tumours overexpressing Cdc6, further highlighting this event as a potential driver of tumourigenesis. In this review, we summarise the evidence for the role of Cdc6 overexpression in cancer, specifically that of pancreatic cancer. More importantly, we recapitulate the role of Cdc6 as part of the DNA damage response and on senescence-an important antitumour barrier-in the context of pancreatic cancer. Finally, recent emerging observations suggest that the potential of the subcellular localisation of Cdc6 in inducing senescence. In this regard, we speculate and hypothesise potentially exploitable mechanisms in the context of inducing senescence via a novel pathway involving cytoplasmic retention of Cdc6 and Cyclin E.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations77
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of CancerSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207