MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976622956 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m510802200

The Human Enhancer Blocker CTC-binding Factor Interacts with the Transcription Factor Kaiso

2005· article· en· W1976622956 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre‐Antoine Defossez, Guillaume J. Filion, Roberto Pérez‐Torrado, Frédérique Magdinier, Hervé Menoni, Curtis L. Nordgaard, Juliet M. Daniel, Éric Gilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related gene regulation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscription factorEnhancerCancer researchChemistryCell biologyBiologyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CTC-binding factor (CTCF) is a DNA-binding protein of vertebrates that plays essential roles in regulating genome activity through its capacity to act as an enhancer blocker. We performed a yeast two-hybrid screen to identify protein partners of CTCF that could regulate its activity. Using full-length CTCF as bait we recovered Kaiso, a POZ-zinc finger transcription factor, as a specific binding partner. The interaction occurs through a C-terminal region of CTCF and the POZ domain of Kaiso. CTCF and Kaiso are co-expressed in many tissues, and CTCF was specifically co-immunoprecipitated by several Kaiso monoclonal antibodies from nuclear lysates. Kaiso is a bimodal transcription factor that recognizes methylated CpG dinucleotides or a conserved unmethylated sequence (TNGCAGGA, the Kaiso binding site). We identified one consensus unmethylated Kaiso binding site in close proximity to the CTCF binding site in the human 5' beta-globin insulator. We found, in an insulation assay, that the presence of this Kaiso binding site reduced the enhancer-blocking activity of CTCF. These data suggest that the Kaiso-CTCF interaction negatively regulates CTCF insulator activity.

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 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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

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

Citations85
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicCancer-related gene regulationFrench-language works237,207