MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011721592 · doi:10.1093/nar/29.10.2052

UV induces nucleolar translocation of ING1 through two distinct nucleolar targeting sequences

2001· article· en· W2011721592 on OpenAlexaff
Mary T. Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyNucleolusApoptosisCell biologyDNA damageMolecular biologyFusion proteinCell cycleChromosomal translocationAlternative splicingDNAGeneticsNucleusGeneGene isoform

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ING1 candidate tumor suppressor is downregulated in a variety of primary tumors and established cancer cell lines. Blocking its expression experimentally promotes unregulated growth in vitro and in vivo, using cell and animal models. Alternative splicing products encode proteins that localize to the nucleus, inhibit cell cycle progression and affect apoptosis in different model systems. Here we show that ING1 proteins translocate to the nucleolus 12-48 h after UV-induced DNA damage. When a small 50 amino acid portion of ING1 was fused to green fluorescent protein, the fusion protein was efficiently targeted to the nucleolus, indicating that ING1 possesses an intrinsic nucleolar targeting sequence (NTS). We mapped this activity to two distinct 4 amino acid regions, which individually direct fused heterologous proteins to the nucleolus. Overexpression of ING1 induced apoptosis of primary fibroblasts in the presence and absence of UV exposure. In contrast, NTS mutants of ING1 that were not targeted to the nucleolus did not efficiently induce apoptosis when overexpressed and instead protected cells from UV-induced apoptosis. Taken together, these results indicate that UV induces ING1 to translocate to the nucleolus and that this translocation may facilitate apoptosis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.305 · 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

Citations113
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207