MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414164328 · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2025.09.011

The role of super-enhancer-driven lncRNAs in cancer

2025· article· en· W4414164328 on OpenAlexaff
Youle Su, Fei Ji, Jiangyun Peng, Jian‐Jun Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersBasic and Applied Basic Research Foundation of Guangdong ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCancerEpigeneticsTranslational researchCancer cellTumor cellsCancer therapyCancer treatment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the global burden of cancer has grown substantially, yet available treatments and clinical outcomes remain inadequate. Accordingly, research into novel therapeutic targets for cancer has become a major focus. Super-enhancers (SEs), which are clusters of multiple enhancers, represent essential epigenetic oncogenic factors that are critical for maintaining cancer cell identity. Moreover, SE-driven long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs) play a crucial regulatory role in tumor initiation and progression. Targeting cancer-specific SE-driven lncRNAs can slow tumor development and offer a novel strategy for cancer treatment. This review first outlines the characteristics of SEs, including their relevance to phase separation (PS) and the core transcriptional regulatory circuitry (CRC). It then describes the fundamental characteristics, intracellular localization, and functions of SE-driven lncRNAs, with emphasis on the analytical methods for these lncRNAs and their roles in tumors. Finally, the review highlights the clinical applications of existing SE inhibitors in oncology and their potential for targeting SE-driven lncRNAs, aiming to advance translational research in this field.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational and Structural Biotechnology JournalSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207