CoREST in pieces: Dismantling the CoREST complex for cancer therapy and beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ubiquitin ligase complex in regulating stability of corepressor of repressor element 1 silencing transcription factor (CoREST) complex proteins and normal hematopoietic stem cell self-renewal. There is now mounting evidence that the CoREST complex plays oncogenic roles, although the contributions of its catalytic versus noncatalytic functions remain unclear. Here, we summarize and discuss mechanisms whereby the CoREST complex coopts tissue-specific transcription factors to elicit pathogenic activity in cancer and neurodegenerative disease. We also identify tumor types with selective dependencies on the scaffolding properties of the CoREST complex. We argue that these tumor types may benefit from a KBTBD4-activating/CoREST complex degrader therapy, which could also enhance antitumor immunity and sensitize resistant tumors to immunotherapy. Overall, understanding how the CoREST complex operates abnormally and differences between its targeting through catalytic inhibitors or protein degraders will help discern all possible applications for targeting therapies now in clinical development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".