Composition and Function of AP-1 Transcription Complexes during Muscle Cell Differentiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of activating protein-1 (AP-1) in muscle cells is currently equivocal. While some studies propose that AP-1 is inhibitory for myogenesis, others implicate a positive role in this process. We tested whether this variation may be due to different properties of the AP-1 subunit composition in differentiating cells. Using Western analysis we show that c-Jun, Fra-2, and JunD are expressed throughout the time course of differentiation. Phosphatase assays indicate that JunD and Fra-2 are phosphorylated in muscle cells and that at least two isoforms of each are expressed in muscle cells. Electrophoretic mobility shift assays combined with antibody supershifts indicate the appearance of Fra-2 as a major component of the AP-1 DNA binding complex in differentiating cells. In this context it appears that Fra-2 heterodimerizes with c-Jun and JunD. Studying the c-jun enhancer in reporter gene assays we observed that the muscle transcription factors MEF2A and MyoD can contribute to robust transcriptional activation of the c-jun enhancer. In differentiating muscle cells mutation of the MEF2 site reduces transactivation of the c-jun enhancer and MEF2A is the predominant MEF2 isoform binding to this cis element. Transcriptional activation of an AP-1 site containing reporter gene (TRE-Luc) is enhanced under differentiation conditions compared with growth conditions in C2C12 muscle cells. Further studies indicate that Fra-2 containing AP-1 complexes can transactivate the MyoD enhancer/promoter. Thus, an AP-1 complex containing Fra-2 and c-Jun or JunD is consistent with muscle differentiation, indicating that AP-1 function during myogenesis is dependent on its subunit composition.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".