MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133769838 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.642130

Does Subtelomeric Position of COMMD5 Influence Cancer Progression?

2021· article· en· W3133769838 on OpenAlexafffund
Carole G. Campion, Thomas Verissimo, Suzanne Cossette, Johanne Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTelomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyCancerSubtelomereTumor progressionPhenotypeSuppressorTelomereDownregulation and upregulationChromosomeCancer researchGeneticsCancer cellGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COMMD proteins are a family of ten pleiotropic factors which are widely conserved throughout evolution and are involved in the regulation of many cellular and physiological processes. COMMD proteins are mainly expressed in adult tissue and their downregulation has been correlated with tumor progression and poor prognosis in cancer. Among this family, COMMD5 emerged as a versatile modulator of tumor progression. Its expression can range from being downregulated to highly up regulated in a variety of cancer types. Accordingly, two opposing functions could be proposed for COMMD5 in cancer. Our studies supported a role for COMMD5 in the establishment and maintenance of the epithelial cell phenotype, suggesting a tumor suppressor function. However, genetic alterations leading to amplification of COMMD5 proteins have also been observed in various types of cancer, suggesting an oncogenic function. Interestingly, COMMD5 is the only member of this family that is located at the extreme end of chromosome 8, near its telomere. Here, we review some data concerning expression and role of COMMD5 and propose a novel rationale for the potential link between the subtelomeric position of COMMD5 on chromosome 8 and its contrasting functions in cancer.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.333
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceFrench-language works237,207