A single point mutation in<i>Drosophila</i><i>dihydrofolate reductase</i>confers methotrexate resistance to a transgenic CHO cell line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sequence analysis of a cDNA encoding dihydrofolate reductase (DHFR) from a selected methotrexate-resistant Drosophila melanogaster cell line (S3MTX) revealed a substitution of Gln for Leu at position 30. Although the S3MTX cells were approximately 1000 fold more resistant to methotrexate (MTX), the karyotype was similar to the parental line and did not show elongated chromosomes. Furthermore, kinetic analysis of the recombinant enzyme showed a decreased affinity for MTX by the mutant DHFR. To determine if the resistance phenotype could be attributed to the mutant allele, Drosophila Dhfr cDNAs isolated from wild type and S3MTX cells were expressed in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells lacking endogenous DHFR. The heterologous insect DHFRs were functional in transgenic clonal cell lines, showing approximately 400-fold greater MTX resistance in the cell line transfected with the mutant Dhfr than the wild type Dhfr. Resistance to other antifolates in the CHO cells was consistent with the drug sensitivities seen in the respective Drosophila cell lines. ELevated Levels of Dhfr transcript and DHFR in transgenic CHO cells bearing the mutant cDNA were not seen. Taken together, these results demonstrate that a single substitution in Drosophila DHFR alone can confer Levels of MTX resistance comparable with that observed after considerable gene amplification in mammalian cells.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".