Ca2+ and BMP-6 Signaling Regulate E2F during Epidermal Keratinocyte Differentiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The epidermis consists of a squamous epithelium continuously replenished by committed stem cells, which can either self-renew or differentiate. We demonstrated previously that E2F genes are differentially expressed in developing epidermis (Dagnino, L., Fry, C. J., Bartley, S. M., Farnham, P., Gallie, B. L., and Phillips, R. A. (1997) Cell Growth Differ. 8, 553-563). Thus, we hypothesized that various E2F proteins likely play distinct growth regulatory roles in the undifferentiated stem cells and in terminally differentiated keratinocytes. To further understand the function of E2F genes in epidermal morphogenesis, we have examined the expression, regulation, and protein-protein interactions of E2F factors in undifferentiated cultured murine primary keratinocytes or in cells induced to differentiate with Ca(2+) or BMP-6 (bone morphogenetic protein 6). We find similar patterns of E2F regulation with both differentiating agents and demonstrate a switch in expression from E2F-1, -2, and -3 in undifferentiated, proliferating cells to E2F-5 in terminally differentiated keratinocytes. Inhibition of keratinocyte proliferation by transforming growth factor-beta1 did not enhance E2F-5 protein levels, suggesting that this response is specific to differentiation rather than reversible cell cycle withdrawal. E2F-5 up-regulation is also accompanied by formation of heteromeric nuclear complexes containing E2F5, p130, and histone deacetylase (HDAC) 1. Overexpression of E2F5 specifically inhibited DNA synthesis in undifferentiated keratinocytes in an HDAC-dependent manner, suggesting that E2F-5.p130.HDAC1 complexes are likely involved in the permanent withdrawal from the cell cycle of keratinocytes responding to differentiation stimuli.
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".