MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303946575 · doi:10.3390/cancers14194942

Roles of Chromatin Remodelling and Molecular Heterogeneity in Therapy Resistance in Glioblastoma

2022· review· en· W4303946575 on OpenAlexafffund
Huey‐Miin Chen, Ana Nikolić, Divya Singhal, Marco Gallo

Bibliographic record

VenueCancers · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAzrieli FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsFondation Brain Canada
KeywordsEpigenomeEpigeneticsEpigenomicsEpigenetic therapyChromatinBiologyCancer researchChromatin remodelingGlioblastomaCancer stem cellCancer therapyEpigenesisBioinformaticsDNA methylationCancerGeneticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cancer stem cells (CSCs) represent a therapy-resistant reservoir in glioblastoma (GBM). It is now becoming clear that epigenetic and chromatin remodelling programs link the stemlike behaviour of CSCs to their treatment resistance. New evidence indicates that the epigenome of GBM cells is shaped by intrinsic and extrinsic factors, including their genetic makeup, their interactions and communication with other neoplastic and non-neoplastic cells, including immune cells, and their metabolic niche. In this review, we explore how all these factors contribute to epigenomic heterogeneity in a tumour and the selection of therapy-resistant cells. Lastly, we discuss current and emerging experimental platforms aimed at precisely understanding the epigenetic mechanisms of therapy resistance that ultimately lead to tumour relapse. Given the growing arsenal of drugs that target epigenetic enzymes, our review addresses promising preclinical and clinical applications of epidrugs to treat GBM, and possible mechanisms of resistance that need to be overcome.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.312
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancersSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207