What deubiquitinating enzymes, oncogenes, and tumor suppressors actually do: Are current assumptions supported by patient outcomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context can determine whether a given gene acts as an oncogene or a tumor suppressor. Deubiquitinating enzymes (DUBs) regulate the stability of many components of the pathways dictating cell fate so it would be expected that alterations in the levels or activity of these enzymes may have oncogenic or tumor suppressive consequences. In the current review we survey publications reporting that genes encoding DUBs are oncogenes or tumor suppressors. For many DUBs both claims have been made. For such "double agents," the effects of gain or loss of function will depend on the overall status of a complex of molecular signaling networks subject to extensive crosstalk. As the TGF-β paradox makes clear context is critical in cell fate decisions, and the disconnect between experimental findings and patient survival outcomes can in part be attributed to disparities between culture conditions and the microenvironment in vivo. Convincing claims for oncogene or tumor suppressor roles require the documentation of gene alterations in patient samples; survival curves are alone inadequate.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".