MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412120149 · doi:10.1002/prp2.70149

Extending Investigations of <scp>miR</scp>‐126‐5p on the Regulation of <scp>CYP2A6</scp>, the Major Nicotine‐Inactivating Enzyme

2025· article· en· W4412120149 on OpenAlexafffund
Weilong Gu, Alec W. R. Langlois, Haidy Giratallah, Katrina G. Claw, Bhagwat Prasad, Kenneth E. Thummel, Rachel F. Tyndale

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacology Research & Perspectives · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicroRNA in disease regulation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFogarty International CenterNational Institutes of HealthCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsmicroRNACYP2A6NicotineMessenger RNABiologyEnzymeChemistryInternal medicineMedicineGeneticsBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT CYP2A6 is the hepatic enzyme responsible for the metabolic inactivation of nicotine. Variation in CYP2A6 alters nicotine clearance, affecting numerous smoking behaviors and tobacco‐related diseases, making investigating sources of variation important. A published molecular study of microRNA‐126‐5p, the microRNA‐126 functional arm, showed it decreased CYP2A6 expression post‐transcriptionally; it also showed that higher CYP2A7 mRNA competed for microRNA‐126‐5p binding, mitigating the CYP2A6 reduction. To extend these observations, we investigated relationships between microRNA‐126‐5p and CYP2A6 protein and activity using a large human liver bank ( n = 282). MicroRNA‐126‐5p was not inversely correlated with CYP2A6 protein ( r s = 0.04, p &gt; 0.05), nor was it significant in an unadjusted regression model ( p &gt; 0.05) or in an adjusted model (with genotype, age, and sex) ( p &gt; 0.05). Although CYP2A7 mRNA was positively correlated with CYP2A6 protein ( r s = 0.48, p &lt; 0.001), adding CYP2A7 mRNA to the adjusted model did not alter the relationship between microRNA‐126‐5p and CYP2A6 protein ( p &gt; 0.05), nor did CYP2A7 mRNA interact with microRNA‐126‐5p on CYP2A6 ( p &gt; 0.05). Similar results were found in modeling CYP2A6 activity. MicroRNA‐21 was used as a positive control (inversely correlated with CYP2A6 protein, r s = −0.33, p &lt; 0.001) and microRNA‐152 as a negative control (not correlated with CYP2A6 protein, r s = −0.06, p &gt; 0.05). These data do not support a role for microRNA‐126‐5p in downregulating CYP2A6 protein or activity, or for CYP2A7 mRNA in playing a decoy role, even when other predictors (genotype, age, and sex) were included in the model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacology Research & PerspectivesSame topicMicroRNA in disease regulationFrench-language works237,207