Molecular Landscape of LncRNAs in Prostate Cancer: A focus on pathways and therapeutic targets for intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: One of the most malignant tumors in men is prostate cancer that is still incurable due to its heterogenous and progressive natures. Genetic and epigenetic changes play significant roles in its development. The RNA molecules with more than 200 nucleotides in length are known as lncRNAs and these epigenetic factors do not encode protein. They regulate gene expression at transcriptional, post-transcriptional and epigenetic levels. LncRNAs play vital biological functions in cells and in pathological events, hence their expression undergoes dysregulation. AIM OF REVIEW: The role of epigenetic alterations in prostate cancer development are emphasized here. Therefore, lncRNAs were chosen for this purpose and their expression level and interaction with other signaling networks in prostate cancer progression were examined. KEY SCIENTIFIC CONCEPTS OF REVIEW: The aberrant expression of lncRNAs in prostate cancer has been well-documented and progression rate of tumor cells are regulated via affecting STAT3, NF-κB, Wnt, PI3K/Akt and PTEN, among other molecular pathways. Furthermore, lncRNAs regulate radio-resistance and chemo-resistance features of prostate tumor cells. Overexpression of tumor-promoting lncRNAs such as HOXD-AS1 and CCAT1 can result in drug resistance. Besides, lncRNAs can induce immune evasion of prostate cancer via upregulating PD-1. Pharmacological compounds such as quercetin and curcumin have been applied for targeting lncRNAs. Furthermore, siRNA tool can reduce expression of lncRNAs thereby suppressing prostate cancer progression. Prognosis and diagnosis of prostate tumor at clinical course can be evaluated by lncRNAs. The expression level of exosomal lncRNAs such as lncRNA-p21 can be investigated in serum of prostate cancer patients as a reliable biomarker.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".