MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001643579 · doi:10.4161/cc.7.12.6025

p14ARF interacts with DAXX: Effects on HDM2 and p53

2008· article· en· W2001643579 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stacey Ivanchuk, Soma Mondal, James T. Rutka

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Cycle · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteHospital for Sick ChildrenMcGill University
KeywordsDeath-associated protein 6BiologySUMO proteinDownregulation and upregulationTransfectionCell biologyNuclear proteinCancer researchMolecular biologyUbiquitinCell cultureGeneTranscription factorGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The p14(ARF) (ARF) tumour suppressor plays an important role in the cellular response to oncogene activation. In this report, we demonstrate an interaction between ARF and DAXX, a highly conserved protein with identified roles in the regulation of gene expression. HDM2 was shown to interact with each of ARF and DAXX upon upregulation of expression as well as at lower expression levels following transfection of ARF and DAXX. Through immunofluorescence analysis, we observed that endogenous ARF and DAXX colocalize both to nucleoli and to nuclear bodies in cell lines that co-express both proteins. Similar results were obtained upon co-transfection of ARF and DAXX. Co-expression of ARF and DAXX was further found to inhibit ARF-mediated HDM2 sumoylation and to induce sumoylation and ubiquitination of DAXX itself, implicating DAXX as a substrate of ARF-mediated post-translational events. We also observed induction of p53 sumoylation in the presence of ARF and DAXX, an effect that was inhibited by upregulation of HDM2 expression. In summary, we have identified DAXX as a novel ARF binding partner and substrate of ARF-mediated sumoylation and suggest that DAXX acts as a modifier of both p53-dependent and p53-independent ARF 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 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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell CycleSame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207