The Cell-specific Expression of Endothelial Nitric-oxide Synthase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The basis for the endothelial cell-restricted expression of endothelial nitric-oxide synthase (eNOS) is not known. While transgenic promoter/reporter mice demonstrated endothelium cell-specific eNOS expression, we found robust expression of episomal eNOS promoter/reporter constructs in cell types that do not express the native eNOS transcript. To explore the mechanism underlying this differential activity pattern of chromatin-versus episome-based eNOS promoters, we examined the methylation status of 5'-regulatory sequences of the human eNOS gene. DNA methylation differed dramatically between endothelial and nonendothelial cell types, including vascular smooth muscle cells. This same cell type-specific methylation pattern was observed in vivo in endothelial and vascular smooth muscle cells of the mouse aorta at the native murine eNOS promoter. We addressed the functional consequences of methylation on eNOS transcription using transient transfection of in vitro methylated promoter/reporter constructs and found that methylated constructs exhibited a marked decrease in the synergistic action of Sp1, Sp3, and Ets1 on eNOS promoter activity. The addition of methyl-CpG-binding protein 2 further reduced the transcriptional activity of methylated eNOS constructs. Importantly, chromatin immunoprecipitation demonstrated the presence of Sp1, Sp3, and Ets1 at the native eNOS promoter in endothelial cells but not in vascular smooth muscle cells. Finally, robust expression of eNOS mRNA was induced in nonendothelial cell types following inhibition of DNA methyltransferase activity with 5-azacytidine, demonstrating the importance of DNA methylation-mediated repression. This report is the first to show that promoter DNA methylation plays an important role in the cell-specific expression of a constitutively expressed gene in the vascular endothelium.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".