MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208714907 · doi:10.1128/mbio.02062-21

Modulation of the Host Cell Transcriptome and Epigenome by Fusobacterium nucleatum

2021· article· en· W3208714907 on OpenAlexafffund
Cody A Despins, Scott D. Brown, Avery Robinson, Andrew J. Mungall, Emma Allen‐Vercoe, Robert A. Holt

Bibliographic record

VenuemBio · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of GuelphSimon Fraser University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research UKGovernment of Canada
KeywordsFusobacterium nucleatumEpigenomeTranscriptomeHost (biology)Computational biologyMetagenomicsMicrobiomeBiologyComputer scienceMicrobiologyBacteriaBioinformaticsGeneticsGeneGene expressionDNA methylationPorphyromonas gingivalis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fusobacterium nucleatum is a bacterium normally found in the healthy oral cavity but also has an emerging role in colorectal cancer and other cancer settings. The host-microbe interactions of F. nucleatum and its involvement in tumor initiation, progression, and treatment resistance are not fully understood. We explored host cell changes that occur in response to F. nucleatum. We identified key genes differentially expressed in response to various conditions of F. nucleatum exposure and determined that the conserved host cell response to F. nucleatum was dominated by increased inflammation and chemokine gene expression. Additionally, we found extensive host cell epigenomic changes as a novel aspect of host modulation associated with F. nucleatum exposure. These results extend our understanding of F. nucleatum as an emerging pathogen and highlight the importance of considering strain heterogeneity and host cell phenotypic variation when exploring pathogenic mechanisms of F. nucleatum.

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 score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations45
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemBioSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207