MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376643537 · doi:10.1172/jci167824

Back to the future: evolutionary biology reveals a key regulatory switch in neuroblastoma pathogenesis

2023· letter· en· W4376643537 on OpenAlexafffund
Jaime Wertman, Jason N. Berman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of OttawaIzaak Walton Killam Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchKillam Trusts
KeywordsZebrafishNeuroblastomaBiologyGeneMetastasisCancer researchGeneticsCell cultureCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While MYCN expression is an important contributing factor to heterogeneity in the natural history of neuroblastoma (NBL), a mechanistic understanding of this often mutationally quiet tumor has remained elusive. In this issue of the JCI, Weichert-Leahey and authors focused on the adrenergic and mesenchymal core regulatory circuitries (CRC) as NBL transcriptional programs. The authors previously showed that overexpression of LIM-domain-only 1 (LMO1), a transcriptional coregulator, synergizes with MYCN to accelerate tumor formation and metastasis in an NBL-zebrafish model. They now demonstrate experimentally, using genome-edited zebrafish, that a polymorphism in the human rs2168101 locus of the LMO1 gene determines which CRC is active in a tumor. In some cases, LMO3 compensated for LMO1 loss and drove the adrenergic CRC in MYCN-positive NBL. This study exemplifies the value of evolutionary relationships and zebrafish models in the investigation of human disease and reveals pathways of NBL development that may affect prevention or intervention strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0130.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical InvestigationSame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207