<i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>: a fruitful model for oncohistones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drosophila melanogaster has proven to be a powerful genetic model to study human disease. Approximately 75% of human disease-associated genes have homologs in the fruit fly and regulatory pathways are highly conserved in Drosophila compared to humans. Drosophila is an established model organism for the study of genetics and developmental biology related to human disease and has also made a great contribution to epigenetic research. Many key factors that regulate chromatin condensation through effects on histone post-translational modifications were first discovered in genetic screens in Drosophila. Recently, the importance of chromatin regulators in cancer progression has been uncovered, leading to a rapid expansion in the knowledge on how perturbations of chromatin can result in the pathogenesis of human cancer. In this review, we provide examples of how Drosophila melanogaster has contributed to better understanding the detrimental effects of mutant forms of histones, called ‘oncohistones’, that are found in different human tumours.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".