MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992885167 · doi:10.1210/me.2010-0219

Prolactin Inhibits Activity of Pyruvate Kinase M2 to Stimulate Cell Proliferation

2010· article· en· W1992885167 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Bentley Varghese, Gayathri Swaminathan, A.N. Plotnikov, Christos Tzimas, Ning Yang, Hallgeir Rui, Serge Y. Fuchs

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Endocrinology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer, Hypoxia, and Metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthHarvard UniversityNorthwestern UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonYork UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaDartmouth CollegeChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia
KeywordsPKM2BiologyPyruvate kinaseCell growthJanus kinase 2GlycolysisCell biologyPhosphorylationKinaseSignal transductionCancer researchBiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitogenic and prosurvival effects underlie the tumorigenic roles of prolactin (PRL) in the pathogenesis of breast cancer. PRL signaling is mediated through its receptor (PRLr). A proteomics screen identified the pyruvate kinase M2 (PKM2), a glycolytic enzyme known to play an important role in tumorigenesis, as a protein that constitutively interacts with PRLr. Treatment of cells with PRL inhibited pyruvate kinase activity and increased the lactate content in human cells in a manner that was dependent on the abundance of PRLr, activation of Janus kinase 2, and tyrosine phosphorylation of the intracellular domain of PRLr. Knockdown of PKM2 attenuated PRL-stimulated cell proliferation. The extent of this proliferation was rescued by the knock-in of the wild-type PKM2 but not of its mutant insensitive to PRL-mediated inhibition. We discuss a hypothesis that the inhibition of PKM2 by PRL contributes to the PRL-stimulated cell proliferation.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular EndocrinologySame topicCancer, Hypoxia, and MetabolismFrench-language works237,207