MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1513533768 · doi:10.1054/bjoc.2000.1464

Expression of the novel tumour suppressor p33ING1 is independent of p53

2000· article· en· W1513533768 on OpenAlexafffund
K-J J Cheung, Jason Bush, William Jia, Gang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsVancouver Hospital and Health Sciences CentreVancouver Infectious Diseases CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council CanadaCanadian Dermatology Foundation
KeywordsHaCaTCarcinogenesisBiologyCancer researchApoptosisKeratinocyteCell cultureTumor suppressor geneSuppressorCell growthCell biologyKnockout mouseMolecular biologyCancerGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recently cloned tumour suppressor candidate, p33ING1, has been shown in vitro to collaborate with p53 to execute growth arrest and apoptosis. However, it is unclear as to how the expression of ING1 is regulated in normal and stress conditions. Using a p53-knockout mouse model, we investigated if the expression of ING1 was dependent on p53. We found that there was no difference in ING1 mRNA and protein levels between p53+/+ and p53-/- murine organs. In addition, when normal human epithelial keratinocytes (NHEK) and a keratinocyte cell line, HaCaT, which lacks wild-type p53 function, were exposed to UVB irradiation, the expression levels of ING1 were elevated in both NHEK and HaCaT cells. It is interesting, however, that UVB irradiation did not induce ING1 expression in dermal fibroblasts isolated from p53+/+ and p53-/- mice. Based on our findings, we therefore conclude that the expression of ING1 is independent of p53 status. UV induction of ING1 in keratinocytes suggests that ING1 may play a role in cellular stress response and skin carcinogenesis.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.260
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.

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

Citations45
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207