MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aberrant DNA Damage Response and DNA Repair Pathway in High Glucose Conditions

2018· article· en· W4322701723 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amy Zhong, Melissa Chang, Theresa Yu, Raymond Gau, Daniel Riley, Yumay Chen, Phang‐Lang Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of cancer research updates · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDNA damageDNA repairOxidative stressDiabetes mellitusGenome instabilityBiologyDNAMutationCancer researchEndocrinologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Higher cancer rates and more aggressive behavior of certain cancers have been reported in populations with diabetes mellitus. This association has been attributed in part to the excessive reactive oxygen species generated in diabetic conditions and to the resulting oxidative DNA damage. It is not known, however, whether oxidative stress is the only contributing factor to genomic instability in patients with diabetes or whether high glucose directly also affects DNA damage and repair pathways. Results: Normal renal epithelial cells and renal cell carcinoma cells are more chemo- and radiation resistant when cultured in high concentrations of glucose. In high glucose conditions, the CHK1-mediated DNA damage response is not activated properly. Cells in high glucose also have slower DNA repair rates and accumulate more mutations than cells grown in normal glucose concentrations. Ultimately, these cells develop a transforming phenotype. Conclusions: In high glucose conditions, defective DNA damage responses most likely contribute to the higher mutation rate in renal epithelial cells, in addition to oxidative DNA damage. The DNA damage and repair are normal enzyme dependent mechanisms requiring euglycemic environments. Aberrant DNA damage response and repair in cells grown in high glucose conditions underscore the importance of maintaining good glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus and 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of cancer research updatesSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207