Cell type–specific regulation of von Willebrand factor expression by the E4BP4 transcriptional repressor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanisms of tissue-restricted patterns of von Willebrand factor (VWF) expression involve activators and repressors that limit expression to endothelial cells and megakaryocytes. The relative transcriptional activity of the proximal VWF promoter was assessed in VWF-producing and -nonproducing cells, and promoter activity was highest in endothelial cells followed by megakaryocytes. Only basal VWF promoter activity was seen in nonendothelial cells. Here we identify a negative response element located at nucleotides (nts) +96/+105 and demonstrate, using chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) analysis, that in vivo this sequence interacts with the E4BP4 transcriptional repressor. Differences in size and relative abundance of nuclear E4BP4 were observed. In HepG2 cells, low levels of larger forms of E4BP4 are present that directly interact with the negative response element. In VWF-expressing cells, high levels of smaller forms predominate with no evidence of direct DNA binding. However, in endothelial cells, mutation of the VWF E4BP4 binding motif not only restores but also further elevates VWF promoter activity, suggesting that E4BP4 may be part of a coordinated binding complex. These observations implicate this binding motif in repressing both activated and basal levels of VWF transcription by different cell type-specific mechanisms, and support the hypothesis that E4BP4 sequesters negative regulators of transcription, thereby enhancing activated gene expression.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".