MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3214607380 · doi:10.1038/s41389-021-00370-7

Emerging role of G9a in cancer stemness and promises as a therapeutic target

2021· review· en· W3214607380 on OpenAlexafffund
Joshua R. Haebe, Christopher J. Bergin, Tamara Sandouka, Yannick D. Benoit

Bibliographic record

VenueOncogenesis · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceGovernment of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCancer Research Society
KeywordsCancerMedicineCancer researchInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The histone methyltransferase G9a is well-documented for its implication in neoplastic growth. However, recent investigations have demonstrated a key involvement of this chromatin writer in maintaining the self-renewal and tumor-initiating capacities of cancer stem cells (CSCs). Direct inhibition of G9a's catalytic activity was reported as a promising therapeutic target in multiple preclinical studies. Yet, none of the available pharmacological inhibitors of G9a activity have shown success at the early stages of clinical testing. Here, we discuss central findings of oncogenic expression and activation of G9a in CSCs from different origins, as well as the impact of the suppression of G9a histone methyltransferase activity in such contexts. We will explore the challenges posed by direct and systemic inhibition of G9a activity in the perspective of clinical translation of documented small molecules. Finally, we will discuss recent advances in drug discovery as viable strategies to develop context-specific drugs, selectively targeting G9a in CSC populations.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.332 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncogenesisSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207