MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178186398 · doi:10.3390/cancers13143557

TBC1D9: An Important Modulator of Tumorigenesis in Breast Cancer

2021· article· en· W3178186398 on OpenAlexaff
Charu Kothari, Alisson Clemenceau, Geneviève Ouellette, Kaoutar Ennour‐Idrissi, René C.-Gaudreault, Caroline Diorio, Francine Durocher

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Saint-SacrementHôpital Saint-François d'AssiseUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriple-negative breast cancerGene knockdownDownregulation and upregulationBreast cancerCancer researchCarcinogenesisCancerBiologyMedicineCell cultureInternal medicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a major concern among the different subtypes of breast cancer (BC) due to the lack of effective treatment. In a previous study by our group aimed at understanding the difference between TNBC and non-TNBC tumors, we identified the gene TBC1 domain family member 9 (TBC1D9), the expression of which was lower in TNBC as compared to non-TNBC tumors. In the present study, analysis of TBC1D9 expression in TNBC (n = 58) and non-TNBC (n = 25) patient tumor samples validated that TBC1D9 expression can differentiate TNBC (low) from non-TNBC (high) samples and that expression of TBC1D9 was inversely correlated with grade and proliferative index. Moreover, we found that downregulation of the TBC1D9 gene decreases the proliferation marginally in non-TNBC and was associated with increased migratory and tumorigenic potential in both TNBC and luminal BC cell lines. This increase was mediated by the upregulation of ARL8A, ARL8B, PLK1, HIF1α, STAT3, and SPP1 expression in TBC1D9 knockdown cells. Our results suggest that TBC1D9 expression might limit tumor aggressiveness and that it has a differential expression in TNBC vs. non-TNBC tumors.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207