MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416878460 · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-06332-7

Bulk RNA sequencing dataset of Claudin-low breast cancer cell lines with Neuropilin-1 knockdown

2025· article· en· W4416878460 on OpenAlexaff
Layla-Rose Lynam, Anja Rockstroh, Melanie Lehman, Yu Tang, M. Nguyen, Philip A. Gregory, Colleen C. Nelson, Marianna Volpert, Brett G. Hollier

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBarrier Structure and Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscriptomeBreast cancerGene knockdownRNAPaclitaxelCell cultureCancerMessenger RNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) are a particularly aggressive breast cancer subtype with poor prognosis and high relapse rates. Due to a lack of identified targeted therapies, chemotherapy currently remains as the primary treatment for TNBC. Approximately 25-39% of TNBC are claudin-low breast cancers, which are mainly defined by low expression of cell-cell adhesion proteins and enrichment of mesenchymal signatures. Functional studies have demonstrated the potential role of the transmembrane-coreceptor, Neuropilin-1 (NRP1) in regulating the progression of these tumours. However, there have been no high-throughput studies to date that comprehensively investigate NRP1-modulated cell-signalling across multiple claudin-low cell lines. Therefore, we treated HS578T, MDA-MB-231 and SUM159PT claudin-low cell lines with either a non-targeting (NT) control or two NRP1-targeting small-interfering RNA (siRNA) or short-hairpin RNA (shRNA) sequences and followed this with bulk-RNA sequencing. We present this comprehensive transcriptomic dataset which provides a valuable resource for understanding both the transcriptomic landscape of claudin-low breast cancer and NRP1-regulated signalling pathways. Therefore, paving the way for future studies of its potential as a therapeutic target.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicBarrier Structure and Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207