MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993923451 · doi:10.1182/blood-2013-02-483495

Essential role of BRG, the ATPase subunit of BAF chromatin remodeling complexes, in leukemia maintenance

2014· article· en· W1993923451 on OpenAlexaff
Manuel Buscarlet, Veneta Krasteva, Lena Ho, Camille Simon, Josée Hébert, Brian T. Wilhelm, Guy Sauvageau, Pierre Thibault, Julie Lessard

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsChromatin remodelingATPaseProtein subunitCell biologyLeukemiaChromatinBiologyChemistryCancer researchBiochemistryGeneticsEnzymeDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In mammals, combinatorial assembly of alternative families of subunits confers functional specificity to adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-dependent SWI/SNF-like Brg/Brm-associated factor (BAF) chromatin remodeling complexes by creating distinct polymorphic surfaces for interaction with regulatory elements and DNA-binding factors. Although redundant in terms of biochemical activity, the core ATPase subunits, BRG/SMARCA4 and BRM/SMARCA2, are functionally distinct and may contribute to complex specificity. Here we show using quantitative proteomics that BAF complexes expressed in leukemia are specifically assembled around the BRG ATPase. Moreover, using a mouse model of acute myeloid leukemia, we demonstrate that BRG is essential for leukemia maintenance, as leukemic cells lacking BRG rapidly undergo cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis. Most importantly, we show that BRG is dispensable for the maintenance of immunophenotypic long-term repopulating hematopoietic stem cells, suggesting that adroit targeting of BRG in leukemia may have potent and specific therapeutic effects.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations125
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207