PU.1 protein expression has a positive linear association with protein expression of germinal centre B cell genes including <i>BCL‐6, CD10, CD20</i> and <i>CD22</i> : identification of PU.1 putative binding sites in the <i>BCL‐6</i> promotor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The transcription factor PU.1 has been shown to be crucial for the early stages of B cell development but its function at later stages of B cell development is less well known. We observed previously that PU.1 is expressed uniformly throughout the mature pre-plasma cell B cell population, the only exception being a subpopulation of germinal centre (GC) cells which showed exceptionally high expression of PU.1. This suggested that PU.1 may also have a role in GC B cell biology. To test this hypothesis and to screen for possible genes regulated by PU.1, we first evaluated semi-quantitatively the possible co-expression of PU.1 with proteins known to be upregulated or downregulated during GC B cell development. Normal lymphoid tissues and 255 B cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas of putative GC B cell origin were evaluated. PU.1 expression was positively associated with CD10 (p < 0.0001), CD20 (p = 0.043), CD22 (p = 0.005), CD79a (p = 0.024) and Bcl-6 (p < 0.0001) and negatively associated with cytoplasmic immunoglobulin light-chain expression (p = 0.036) in diffuse large B cell lymphoma. Identical or nearly identical associations were found in follicular lymphoma. Since CD20 is known to be partly regulated by PU.1 and putative PU.1-binding sites have been described in the regulatory regions of the CD22, CD79a and CD10 genes, we looked for putative PU.1 binding sites in the BCL6 promotor. Four such putative PU.1 binding sites were identified. Further analysis by gel-shift electromobility essay showed that PU.1 protein binds to three of the four putative binding sites in the BCL6 promotor. PU.1 and Bcl-6 were also found to be upregulated in centroblasts in the normal GC, but jointly downregulated in a subpopulation of centrocytes. Our findings support the contention that PU.1 may also have an important role in GC B cell development.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".