An imbalance between proliferation and differentiation underlies the development of microRNA-defective pineoblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mutations in the microRNA processing genes DROSHA and DICER1 drive several cancers that resemble embryonic progenitors. To understand how microRNAs regulate tumorigenesis, we ablated Drosha or Dicer1 in the developing pineal gland to emulate the pathogenesis of pineoblastoma, a brain tumor that resembles undifferentiated precursors of the pineal gland. Accordingly, these mice develop pineal tumors marked by loss of microRNAs, particularly the let-7/miR-98-5p family, and derepression of microRNA target genes. Pineal tumors driven by loss of Drosha or Dicer1 mimic tumors driven by Rb1 loss, as they exhibit upregulation of S-phase genes and homeobox transcription factors that regulate pineal development. Blocking proliferation of these tumors facilitates expression of pinealocyte maturation markers, with a concomitant reduction in embryonic markers. Select embryonic markers remain elevated, however, as the microRNAs that normally repress these target genes remain absent. One such microRNA target gene is the oncofetal transcription factor Plagl2 , which regulates expression of progrowth genes, and inhibiting their signaling impairs tumor growth. Thus, we demonstrate that tumors driven by loss of microRNA processing may be therapeutically targeted by inhibiting downstream drivers of proliferation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".