MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415242252 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-20183-7

CRISPR screen reveals SOX2 as a critical regulator of CD133 and cellular stress response in glioblastoma

2025· article· en· W4415242252 on OpenAlexafffund
Neil Savage, Etienne Danis, Chirayu Chokshi, Stefan Custers, Muhammad Vaseem Shaikh, Petar Miletic, Chitra Venugopal, Kevin R. Brown, Rajeev Vibhakar, Jason Moffat, Sheila K. Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical CentreJuravinski Cancer Centre
FundersHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoMcMaster UniversityMitacsGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsGlioblastomaSOX2CRISPRRegulatorStem cellCellular stress response

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glioblastoma (GBM) remains a formidable challenge in clinical settings due to limited treatments available. The surface protein CD133 marks glioblastoma stem cells (GSCs), cells capable of overcoming therapeutic pressures and correlate with more aggressiveness tumor phenotypes. In this study, we employed a CRISPR-Cas9 functional screen to deconvolute CD133 dynamics in tumors. This led us to establish that SOX2 is a key player in controlling the PROM1 gene, which in turn influences how cells react to stress factors, including those induced by chemoradiation treatment. The discoveries in this study shed light on the complex web of mechanisms that control the survival and resistance of GSCs, offering promising new avenues for targeting and potentially overcoming therapy resistance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueScientific Reports→Same topicRNA Research and Splicing→French-language works237,207→