Oncoproteins E6/E7 of the human papillomavirus types 16 & 18 synergize in modulating oncogenes and tumor suppressor proteins in colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our study presents a novel analysis of the oncogenes and tumor suppressor proteins directly modulated by E6/E7 of high-risk HPV types 16 and 18, in colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: HCT 116 (KRAS mutant) & HT-29 (TP53 mutant) cell models of CRC were transduced with E6/E7 of HPV16 and HPV18, individually and in combination. Further, we utilized a liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) approach to analyze and compare the proteomes of both CRC cell models. RESULTS: ≤ 0.01). Less than 1% of the genes were commonly modulated by HPV, between both models. We also report that HT-29 cells, expressing E6/E7 of both HPV types, significantly reduced the suppression of oncogenes as compared to cells expressing E6/E7 of either HPV types individually (p-value ≤0.00001). CONCLUSION: Our data imply that HPV coinfections leads to the sustenance of a pro-oncogenic environment in CRC. HPV modulates different oncogenes/tumor suppressor proteins in CRC of varying mutational backgrounds, thus highlighting the importance of personalized therapies for such diseases with mutational heterogeneity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".