MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396620957 · doi:10.1186/s12951-024-02456-x

Single-sEV profiling identifies the TACSTD2 + sEV subpopulation as a factor of tumor susceptibility in the elderly

2024· article· en· W4396620957 on OpenAlexaff
Nannan Ning, Jianying Lu, Qianpeng Li, Mengmeng Li, Yanling Cai, Hongchun Wang, Jingxin Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nanobiotechnology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shandong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDownregulation and upregulationBiomarkerMedicineCancerCarcinomaOncologyCancer researchInternal medicineBiologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Aging is a very complex physiological phenomenon, and sEVs are involved in the regulation of this mechanism. Serum samples from healthy individuals under 30 and over 60 years of age were collected to analyze differences in sEVs proteomics. RESULTS: Based on PBA analysis, we found that sEVs from the serum of elderly individuals highly express TACSTD2 and identified a subpopulation marked by TACSTD2. Using ELISA, we verified the upregulation of TACSTD2 in serum from elderly human and aged mouse. In addition, we discovered that TACSTD2 was significantly increased in samples from tumor patients and had better diagnostic value than CEA. Specifically, 9 of the 13 tumor groups exhibited elevated TACSTD2, particularly for cervical cancer, colon cancer, esophageal carcinoma, liver cancer and thyroid carcinoma. Moreover, we found that serum sEVs from the elderly (especially those with high TACSTD2 levels) promoted tumor cell (SW480, HuCCT1 and HeLa) proliferation and migration. CONCLUSION: TACSTD2 was upregulated in the serum of elderly individuals and patients with tumors, and could serve as a dual biomarker for aging and tumors.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NanobiotechnologySame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207