MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969633505 · doi:10.1210/endo.143.1.8590

Direct Interaction of the Krüppel-like Family (KLF) Member, BTEB1, and PR Mediates Progesterone-Responsive Gene Expression in Endometrial Epithelial Cells

2002· article· en· W1969633505 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daying Zhang, Xuelian Zhang, Frank Michel, Jason L. Blum, Frank A. Simmen, Rosalia C.M. Simmen

Bibliographic record

VenueEndocrinology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicKruppel-like factors research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignMcGill University
KeywordsTransactivationBiologyReporter geneGene expressionChromatin immunoprecipitationGene isoformMolecular biologyLuciferaseProgesterone receptorTransfectionRegulation of gene expressionEndocrinologyInternal medicineCell cultureGenePromoterMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was undertaken to evaluate the underlying mechanism(s) by which PR and a Krüppel-like family member, basic transcription element binding protein (BTEB1), mediate endometrial epithelial expression of pregnancy-associated genes. Human endometrial carcinoma cell lines (Hec-1-A) expressing high and low levels of BTEB1 were transiently transfected with a human PR isoform (PR-B) expression construct and a luciferase reporter gene driven by the uteroferrin gene promoter that is responsive to both BTEB1 and the PR ligand progesterone. Unliganded PR inhibited luciferase activity in low and high BTEB backgrounds, and this effect was reversed by the synthetic progestin R5020 in both lines. Transactivation by PR of uteroferrin promoter activity (approximately 4-fold) was maximal at lower R5020 concentrations (10 nM) in endometrial cells with higher BTEB1 expression, suggesting that nuclear BTEB1content influenced target gene promoter sensitivity to progesterone. BTEB1 and PR-B were found to physically interact in a progesterone-independent manner, using a coimmunoprecipitation assay that employed antibodies specific to either protein. Moreover, the formation of the BTEB1/PR complex, independent of progesterone, occurred within the context of uterine endometrial proteins and was diminished in late-pregnancy endometrium. Mammalian two-hybrid assays using the entire open reading frame of BTEB1 and/or PR-B fused to either the GAL4 DNA-binding domain or VP16 activation domain and a reporter gene (pG5CAT) under the control of GAL4-binding sites were used to evaluate the formation of functional PR-B/BTEB1 dimer in Cos-1 cells. GAL4/PR-B and VP16/PR-B induced ( approximately 3- to 4-fold) chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (CAT) activity in a progesterone-dependent manner, suggesting PR-dimer formation. By contrast, VP16/PR-B and GAL4/BTEB1 had no effect on basal CAT activity. The combination of VP16- and GAL4-PR-B fusion proteins with the BTEB1 expression construct, pCDNA3-BTEB1 enhanced ligand-bound PR-mediated CAT activity by approximately 3-fold. In transient cotransfection assays using the CAT reporter gene driven by the mouse mammary tumor virus-long terminal repeat promoter, which is responsive to ligand-bound PR but not BTEB1, BTEB1 increased PR-B-mediated CAT activity in a progesterone-dependent manner, consistent with a BTEB1/PR-dimer complex occurring independent of BTEB1 binding to DNA. Unliganded PR-B disrupted the DNA-binding activity of BTEB1 in gel retardation assays, and this effect was enhanced by the presence of PR ligand. Together, these findings support the conclusion that BTEB1 and PR-B are coregulatory proteins that mediate progesterone responsiveness of target genes by direct interactions, leading to the formation of a functional BTEB1/PR-dimer complex.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations63
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndocrinologySame topicKruppel-like factors researchFrench-language works237,207