MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124975684 · doi:10.1002/bies.202000156

Cancer and the breakdown of multicellularity: What <i>Dictyostelium discoideum</i>, a social amoeba, can teach us

2021· review· en· W3124975684 on OpenAlexafffund
Sabateeshan Mathavarajah, Carter VanIderstine, Graham Dellaire, Robert J. Huber

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDictyostelium discoideumMulticellular organismBiologyAmoeba (genus)DictyosteliumCarcinogenesisGeneCell biologyEvolutionary biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ancient pathways promoting unicellularity and multicellularity are associated with cancer, the former being pro-oncogenic and the latter acting to suppress oncogenesis. However, there are only a limited number of non-vertebrate models for studying these pathways. Here, we review Dictyostelium discoideum and describe how it can be used to understand these gene networks. D. discoideum has a unicellular and multicellular life cycle, making it possible to study orthologs of cancer-associated genes in both phases. During development, differentiated amoebae form a fruiting body composed of a mass of spores that are supported atop a stalk. A portion of the cells sacrifice themselves to become non-reproductive stalk cells. Cheating disrupts the principles of multicellularity, as cheater cells alter their cell fate to preferentially become spores. Importantly, D. discoideum has gene networks and several strategies for maintaining multicellularity. Therefore, D. discoideum can help us better understand how conserved genes and pathways involved in multicellularity also influence cancer development, potentially identifying new therapeutic avenues.

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 score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioEssaysSame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207