MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7029091443

ID1 Expression in Glioblastoma Cells Correlates with One-carbon Mediated Purine Synthesis

2021· dissertation· W7029091443 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw and Political Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBrain Tumour ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPurine metabolismPurineGlioblastomaGliomaCell growthReprogrammingRegulatorPhenotypeEnzyme
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glioblastoma is the most common primary brain tumour in adults. Inhibitor of DNA-binding-1 (ID1) is a transcriptional regulatory protein and a regulator of tumourigenesis in glioblastoma. While ID1 was shown to regulate metabolism in other cancer types, the role of ID1 in metabolic reprogramming of glioblastoma is not clear. In this thesis, we identify a correlation between ID1 expression and 1-C-mediated de novo purine synthesis in glioblastoma, and present data in support of a hypothesizes that this metabolic phenotype underlies proliferative capacity and TMZ-resistance of ID1-high glioblastoma cells. The expression of one-carbon (1-C) metabolism and purine synthesis enzymes are significantly reduced with ID1 knockout. Exogenous purine supplementation restores proliferation in ID1-deficient cells. Treatment of temozolomide-resistant glioblastoma cells (U251-TR) with AICAR sensitizes these cells to chemotherapy. Our data suggest that the metabolic phenotype observed in ID1-high treatment-resistant glioma cells is a potential therapeutic target for this cell population.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicLaw and Political ScienceFrench-language works237,207