Contrasting Role of COMMD5 in Renal Cell Carcinoma: Tumor Suppression and Metastatic Enhancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Aim: Despite diagnostic and therapeutic advances, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) metastasis remains difficult to eliminate. Copper metabolism MURR1 domain-containing 5 (COMMD5), a protein involved in tubular epithelial integrity, is implicated in RCC tumorigenesis. This study explored its role in RCC metastasis. Materials and Methods: Proliferation, adhesion, and survival under hypoxia in RCC cells over-expressing COMMD5 were evaluated. A murine model was used to evaluate metastatic potential in vivo. Clinical data were analyzed for correlations between COMMD5 expression and patient outcomes. Results: COMMD5 over-expression facilitated cancer cell differentiation and suppressed proliferation but enhanced adhesion and survival under hypoxia. In vivo, it reduced metastatic lung nodule growth but increased the number of metastatic lung nodules. Clinically, high COMMD5 expression in normal kidneys correlated with smaller RCC size, while high COMMD5 expression in tumors was linked to poor metastasis-free survival. Conclusion: COMMD5 plays dual roles in RCC progression, as a tumor suppressor and a metastasis enhancer.
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".