MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164735294 · doi:10.3390/cancers13112659

Ubiquitin Proteasome Pathway Transcriptome in Epithelial Ovarian Cancer

2021· review· en· W3164735294 on OpenAlexaff
Jerry Vriend, Mark W. Nachtigal

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicUbiquitin and proteasome pathways
Canadian institutionsCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUbiquitin ligaseCullinUbiquitinBiologyProteasomeGeneTranscriptomeSKP2RNF4Cancer researchCell biologyTranscription factorGeneticsGene expressionZinc finger

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we reviewed the transcription of genes coding for components of the ubiquitin proteasome pathway in publicly available datasets of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). KEGG analysis was used to identify the major pathways distinguishing EOC of low malignant potential (LMP) from invasive high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas (HGSOC), and to identify the components of the ubiquitin proteasome system that contributed to these pathways. We identified elevated transcription of several genes encoding ubiquitin conjugases associated with HGSOC. Fifty-eight genes coding for ubiquitin ligases and more than 100 genes encoding ubiquitin ligase adaptors that were differentially expressed between LMP and HGSOC were also identified. Many differentially expressed genes encoding E3 ligase adaptors were Cullin Ring Ligase (CRL) adaptors, and 64 of them belonged to the Cullin 4 DCX/DWD family of CRLs. The data suggest that CRLs play a role in HGSOC and that some of these proteins may be novel therapeutic targets. Differential expression of genes encoding deubiquitinases and proteasome subunits was also noted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicUbiquitin and proteasome pathwaysFrench-language works237,207