MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024545310 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001338

Id1 Restrains p21 Expression to Control Endothelial Progenitor Cell Formation

2007· article· en· W2024545310 on OpenAlexaff
Alessia Ciarrocchi, Vladimir Janković, Yuval Shaked, Daniel J. Nolan, Vivek Mittal, Robert S. Kerbel, Stephen D. Nimer, Robert Benezra

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAngiogenesis and VEGF in Cancer
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences Centre
FundersAmerican-Italian Cancer FoundationBreast Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsProgenitor cellAngiogenesisBone marrowCancer researchBiologyMyeloidPopulationStem cellProgenitorEndothelial progenitor cellPhenotypeEndothelial stem cellImmunologyCell biologyMedicineGeneIn vitroGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loss of Id1 in the bone marrow (BM) severely impairs tumor angiogenesis resulting in significant inhibition of tumor growth. This phenotype has been associated with the absence of circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) in the peripheral blood of Id1 mutant mice. However, the manner in which Id1 loss in the BM controls EPC generation or mobilization is largely unknown. Using genetically modified mouse models we demonstrate here that the generation of EPCs in the BM depends on the ability of Id1 to restrain the expression of its target gene p21. Through a series of cellular and functional studies we show that the increased myeloid commitment of BM stem cells and the absence of EPCs in Id1 knockout mice are associated with elevated p21 expression. Genetic ablation of p21 rescues the EPC population in the Id1 null animals, re-establishing functional BM-derived angiogenesis and restoring normal tumor growth. These results demonstrate that the restraint of p21 expression by Id1 is one key element of its activity in facilitating the generation of EPCs in the BM and highlight the critical role these cells play in tumor angiogenesis.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations74
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAngiogenesis and VEGF in CancerFrench-language works237,207