Placental Galectins in Cancer: Why We Should Pay More Attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first studies suggesting that abnormal expression of galectins is associated with cancer were published more than 30 years ago. Today, the role of galectins in cancer is relatively well established. We know that galectins play an active role in many types of cancer by regulating cell growth, conferring cell death resistance, or inducing local and systemic immunosuppression, allowing tumor cells to escape the host immune response. However, most of these studies have focused on very few galectins, most notably galectin-1 and galectin-3, and more recently, galectin-7 and galectin-9. Whether other galectins play a role in cancer remains unclear. This is particularly true for placental galectins, a subgroup that includes galectin-13, -14, and -16. The role of these galectins in placental development has been well described, and excellent reviews on their role during pregnancy have been published. At first sight, it was considered unlikely that placental galectins were involved in cancer. Yet, placentation and cancer progression share several cellular and molecular features, including cell invasion, immune tolerance and vascular remodeling. The development of new research tools and the concomitant increase in database repositories for high throughput gene expression data of normal and cancer tissues provide a new opportunity to examine the potential involvement of placental galectins in cancer. In this review, we discuss the possible roles of placental galectins in cancer progression and why they should be considered in cancer studies. We also address challenges associated with developing novel research tools to investigate their protumorigenic functions and design highly specific therapeutic drugs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".