MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032109237 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0407069102

Identification of the mismatch repair genes <i>PMS2</i> and <i>MLH1</i> as p53 target genes by using serial analysis of binding elements

2005· article· en· W2032109237 on OpenAlexaff
Jiguo Chen, Ivan Sadowski

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPMS2GeneGeneticsIdentification (biology)BiologyComputational biologyMLH1DNA mismatch repairDNA repair

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ability to determine the global location of transcription factor binding sites in vivo is important for a comprehensive understanding of gene regulation in human cells. We have developed a technology, called serial analysis of binding elements (SABE), involving subtractive hybridization of chromatin immunoprecipitation-enriched DNA fragments followed by the generation and analysis of concatamerized sequence tags. We applied the SABE technology to search for p53 target genes in the human genome, and have identified several previously described p53 targets in addition to numerous potentially novel targets, including the DNA mismatch repair genes MLH1 and PMS2. Both of these genes were determined to be responsive to DNA damage and p53 activation in normal human fibroblasts, and have p53-response elements within their first intron. These two genes may serve as a sensor in DNA repair mechanisms and a critical determinant for the decision between cell-cycle arrest and apoptosis. These results also demonstrate the potential for use of SABE as a broadly applicable means to globally identify regulatory elements for human transcription factors in vivo.

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)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations110
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207