MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087389491 · doi:10.3892/ijo.2020.5122

Polycomb repressor complex 2 function in breast cancer (Review)

2020· review· en· W3087389491 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Oncology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPRC2BiologyPolycomb-group proteinsChromatinHistone H3EpigeneticsEZH2Gene silencingHistonePromoterRepressorGeneticsCell biologyCancer researchTranscription factorGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epigenetic modifications are important contributors to the regulation of genes within the chromatin. The polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) is a multi‑subunit protein complex that is involved in silencing gene expression through the trimethylation of lysine 27 at histone 3 (H3K27me3). The dysregulation of this modification has been associated with tumorigenicity through the increased repression of tumour suppressor genes via condensing DNA to reduce access to the transcription start site (TSS) within tumor suppressor gene promoters. In the present review, the core proteins of PRC2, as well as key accessory proteins, will be described. In addition, mechanisms controlling the recruitment of the PRC2 complex to H3K27 will be outlined. Finally, literature identifying the role of PRC2 in breast cancer proliferation, apoptosis and migration, including the potential roles of long non‑coding RNAs and the miR‑200 family will be summarized as will the potential use of the PRC2 complex as a therapeutic target.

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.

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 score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.375 · 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