MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012945848 · doi:10.1593/neo.07688

The Contribution of Transactivation Subdomains 1 and 2 to p53-Induced Gene Expression Is Heterogeneous But Not Subdomain-Specific

2007· article· en· W2012945848 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer M. Smith, Lawton J. Stubbert, Jeffrey D. Hamill, Bruce C. McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueNeoplasia · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related gene regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransactivationBiologyGeneGene expressionDNA microarrayGeneticsMolecular biologyRegulation of gene expressionCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two adjacent regions within the transactivation domain of p53 are sufficient to support sequence-specific transactivation when fused to a heterologous DNA binding domain. It has been hypothesized that these two subdomains of p53 may contribute to the expression of distinct p53-responsive genes. Here we have used oligonucleotide microarrays to identify transcripts induced by variants of p53 with point mutations within subdomains 1, 2, or 1 and 2 (QS1, QS2, and QS1/QS2, respectively). The expression of 254 transcripts was increased in response to wild-type p53 expression but most of these transcripts were poorly induced by these variants of p53. Strikingly, a number of known p53-regulated transcripts including TNFRSF10B, BAX, BTG2, and POLH were increased to wild-type levels by p53(QS1) and p53(QS2) but not p53(QS1/QS2), indicating that either subdomain 1 or 2 is sufficient for p53-dependent expression of a small subset of p53-responsive genes. Unexpectedly, there was no evidence for p53(QS1)- or p53(QS2)-specific gene expression. Taken together, we found heterogeneity in the requirement for transactivation subdomains 1 and 2 of p53 without any subdomain-specific contribution to p53-induced gene expression.

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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeoplasiaSame topicCancer-related gene regulationFrench-language works237,207