Phylogenetic Analysis of the ING Family of PHD Finger Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the discovery of ING1 class II tumor suppressors in 1996, five different ING genes (ING1 to ING5) encoding proteins with highly conserved plant homeodomain (PHD) motifs and several splicing isoforms of the ING1 and ING2 gene have been identified. The ING family functions in DNA repair and apoptosis in response to UV damage through binding to proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA); chromatin remodeling and regulation of gene expression through regulating and/or targeting histone acetyltransferase/deacetylase (HAT/HDAC) activities; binding targets of rare phosphatidylinositol phosphates (PtdInsPs) that function in DNA damage-initiated stress signaling; and regulating brain tumor angiogenesis through transcriptional repression of NF-KB-responsive genes. To elucidate the evolutionary history of ING proteins and summarize what is known about regions highly conserved in the ING family members, we have examined the sequences and phylogenetic relationships of ING proteins across taxonomically diverse organisms. We have identified novel ING family members in rats, frogs, fish, mosquitoes, fruit flies, worms, fungi, and plants. We have also clarified the naming and classification of ING proteins based on our phylogenetic analysis to allow better understanding of the ING protein family. Using sequence similarities, we have identified novel regions and motifs of unknown function that are conserved across family members. An evolutionary history for the ING family of PHD finger proteins is presented that indicates that five ING genes are present in vertebrates. Three of these may be paralogs of ING genes found in arthropods, whereas nematodes, fungi, and green plants contain ING genes that have general features of the vertebrate ING family.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".