MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981116197 · doi:10.1073/pnas.081069098

Extracellular matrix composition determines the transcriptional response to epidermal growth factor receptor activation

2001· article· en· W1981116197 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen J. Yarwood, James R. Woodgett

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCell Adhesion Molecules Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFibronectinLamininExtracellular matrixEpidermal growth factorCell biologyBiologyIntegrinCell adhesionGene expressionGeneMolecular biologyCell cultureCellBiochemistryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transcriptional response to epidermal growth factor (EGF) was examined in a cultured cell model of adhesion. Gene expression was monitored in human embryonic kidney cells (HEK293) after attachment of cells to the extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins, laminin, and fibronectin, by using complementary DNA microarrays printed with 1,718 individual human genes. Cluster analysis revealed that the influence of EGF on gene expression, either positive or negative, was largely independent of ECM composition. However, clusters of EGF-regulated genes were identified that were diagnostic of the type of ECM proteins to which cells were attached. In these clusters, attachment of cells to a laminin or fibronectin substrata specifically modified the direction of gene expression changes in response to EGF stimulation. For example, in HEK293 cells attached to fibronectin, EGF stimulated an increase in the expression of some genes; however, genes in the same group were nonresponsive or even suppressed in cells attached to laminin. Many of the genes regulated by EGF and ECM proteins in this manner are involved in ECM and cytoskeletal architecture, protein synthesis, and cell cycle control, indicating that cell responses to EGF stimulation can be dramatically affected by ECM composition.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations71
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicCell Adhesion Molecules ResearchFrench-language works237,207