MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210548675 · doi:10.3390/cancers14030765

The Role of Thymine DNA Glycosylase in Transcription, Active DNA Demethylation, and Cancer

2022· review· en· W4210548675 on OpenAlexafffund
Oladapo Onabote, Haider M. Hassan, Majdina Isovic, Joseph Torchia

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Society
KeywordsDNA demethylationDNA glycosylaseDNA methylationBiologyEpigeneticsBase excision repairDNADNA repairCell biologyChemistryBiochemistryGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

DNA methylation is an essential covalent modification that is required for growth and development. Once considered to be a relatively stable epigenetic mark, many studies have established that DNA methylation is dynamic. The 5-methylcytosine (5-mC) mark can be removed through active DNA demethylation in which 5-mC is converted to an unmodified cytosine through an oxidative pathway coupled to base excision repair (BER). The BER enzyme Thymine DNA Glycosylase (TDG) plays a key role in active DNA demethylation by excising intermediates of 5-mC generated by this process. TDG acts as a key player in transcriptional regulation through its interactions with various nuclear receptors and transcription factors, in addition to its involvement in classical BER and active DNA demethylation, which serve to protect the stability of the genome and epigenome, respectively. Recent animal studies have identified a connection between the loss of Tdg and the onset of tumorigenesis. In this review, we summarize the recent findings on TDG’s function as a transcriptional regulator as well as the physiological relevance of TDG and active DNA demethylation 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations31
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207