Functional relationship between matrix metalloproteinase‐11 and matrix metalloproteinase‐14
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MMP-11 is a key factor in physiopathological tissue remodeling. As an active form is secreted, its activity must be tightly regulated to avoid detrimental effects. Although TIMP-1 and TIMP-2 reversibly inhibit MMP-11, another more drastic scenario, presumably via hydrolysis, could be hypothesized. In this context, we have investigated the possible implication of MMP-14, since it exhibits a spatiotemporal localization similar to MMP-11. Using native HFL1-produced MMP-11 and HT-1080-produced MMP-14 as well as recombinant proteins, we show that MMP-11 is a MMP-14 substrate. MMP-14 cleaves MMP-11 catalytic domain at the PGG(P1)-I(P1')LA and V/IQH(P1)-L(P1')YG scissile bonds, two new cleavage sites. Interestingly, a functional test showed a dramatical reduction in MMP-11 enzymatic activity when incubated with active MMP-14, whereas inactive point-mutated MMP-14 had no effect. This function is conserved between human and mouse. Thus, in addition to the canonical reversible TIMP-dependent inhibitory system, irreversible MMP proteolytic inactivation might occur by cleavage of the catalytic domain in a MMP-dependent manner. Since MMP-14 is produced by HT-1080 cancer cells, whereas MMP-11 is secreted by HFL1 stromal cells, our findings support the emerging importance of tumor-stroma interaction/cross-talk. Moreover, they highlight a Janus-faced MMP-14 function in the MMP cascade, favoring activation of several pro-MMPs, but limiting MMP-11 activity. Finally, both MMPs are active at the cell periphery. Since MMP-14 is present at the cell membrane, whereas MMP-11 is soluble into the cellular microenvironment, this MMP-14 function might represent one critical regulatory mechanism to control the extent of pericellular MMP-11 bioavailability and protect cells from excessive/inappropriate MMP-11 function.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".