A Strategy Utilizing Protein–Protein Interaction Hubs for the Treatment of Cancer Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We describe a strategy for the development of a rational approach of neoplastic disease therapy based on the demonstration that scale-free networks are susceptible to specific attacks directed against its connective hubs. This strategy involves the (i) selection of up-regulated hubs of connectivity in the tumors interactome, (ii) drug repurposing of these hubs, (iii) RNA silencing of non-druggable hubs, (iv) in vitro hub validation, (v) tumor-on-a-chip, (vi) in vivo validation, and (vii) clinical trial. Hubs are protein targets that are assessed as targets for rational therapy of cancer in the context of personalized oncology. We confirmed the existence of a negative correlation between malignant cell aggressivity and the target number needed for specific drugs or RNA interference (RNAi) to maximize the benefit to the patient's overall survival. Interestingly, we found that some additional proteins not generally targeted by drug treatments might justify the addition of inhibitors designed against them in order to improve therapeutic outcomes. However, many proteins are not druggable, or the available pharmacopeia for these targets is limited, which justifies a therapy based on encapsulated RNAi.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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; 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".