MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225396535 · doi:10.3390/toxins14050319

Probing the Mechanism of Action of Cry41Aa on HepG2 through the Establishment of a Resistant Subline

2022· article· en· W4225396535 on OpenAlexaff
Wided Souissi, Alistair Tweedie, B Domańska, Eva Fortea, Michelle J. West, Jean‐Louis Schwartz, Neil Crickmore

Bibliographic record

VenueToxins · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect Resistance and Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersMedical Research CouncilBlood Cancer UK
KeywordsMechanism of actionBiologyMediatorBacillus thuringiensisCell culturePhosphorylationCellMechanism (biology)Cell biologyMicrobiologyBacteriaBiochemistryGeneticsIn vitro

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

that show activity against human cancer cells. Cry41Aa exhibits preferential cytocidal activity towards HL-60 (human promyelocytic leukaemia cells) and HepG2 (human liver cancer cells) cell lines after being proteolytically activated. To better understand the mechanism of action of Cry41Aa, we evolved resistance in HepG2 cells through repeated exposure to increasing doses of the toxin. Concentrations of Cry41Aa that killed over 50% of the parental HepG2 cells had no significant effect on the viability of the resistant cells and did not induce either pore formation or p38 phosphorylation (both characteristic features of pore-forming toxins). Preliminary RNA sequencing data identified AQP9 as a potential mediator of resistance, but extensive investigations failed to show a causal link and did not support an enhanced cell repair process as the resistance mechanism.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToxinsSame topicInsect Resistance and GeneticsFrench-language works237,207