Exploring Importance and Regulation of Autophagy in Cancer Stem Cells and Stem Cell-Based Therapies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autophagy is a globally conserved cellular activity that plays a critical role in maintaining cellular homeostasis through the breakdown and recycling of cellular constituents. In recent years, there has been much emphasis given to its complex role in cancer stem cells (CSCs) and stem cell treatment. This study examines the molecular processes that support autophagy and how it is regulated in the context of CSCs and stem cell treatment. Although autophagy plays a dual role in the management of CSCs, affecting their removal as well as their maintenance, the intricate interaction between the several signaling channels that control cellular survival and death as part of the molecular mechanism of autophagy has not been well elucidated. Given that CSCs have a role in the development, progression, and resistance to treatment of tumors, it is imperative to comprehend their biological activities. CSCs are important for cancer biology because they also show a tissue regeneration model that helps with organoid regeneration. In other words, the manipulation of autophagy is a viable therapeutic approach in the treatment of cancer and stem cell therapy. Both synthetic and natural substances that target autophagy pathways have demonstrated promise in improving stem cell-based therapies and eliminating CSCs. Nevertheless, there are difficulties associated with the limitations of autophagy in CSC regulation, including resistance mechanisms and off-target effects. Thus, the regulation of autophagy offers a versatile strategy for focusing on CSCs and enhancing the results of stem cell therapy. Therefore, understanding the complex interactions between autophagy and CSC biology would be essential for creating therapeutic treatments that work in both regenerative medicine and cancer treatment.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".