Different Transcription Factor Binding Arrays Modulate the cAMP Responsivity of the Phosphoenolpyruvate Carboxykinase Gene Promoter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cAMP responsiveness of the phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (PEPCK) gene promoter is mediated by a cAMP response unit, which includes three CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein (C/EBPs) sites, and a cAMP response element (CRE). Because both the CRE-binding protein and several C/EBP isoforms can to bind to the CRE with similar affinity, a variety of transcription factor bindings arrays in the cAMP response unit are possible that may affect the protein kinase A (PKA) responsivity of the promoter. To explore this issue, we have designed PEPCK promoter variants that have the native cis-elements within the cAMP response unit replaced with one or more LexA- and/or GAL4-binding sites. We also engineered the corresponding C/EBP and CRE-binding protein chimeras, which have their basic region leucine zipper domains replaced with LexA or GAL4 DNA-binding domains. Using this approach, we have reconstituted the PKA responsiveness of permissive PEPCK promoters in hepatoma cells and have characterized the PKA responsivity of the promoter under defined transcription factor occupancy patterns. Furthermore, analysis of deletion mutants of C/EBPalpha indicated that the domains that mediate its constitutive and PKA-inducible activities vary depending on which cis-element it occupies on the PEPCK promoter. These results suggest that promoter context may influence which domains within a transcription factor are employed to mediate transactivation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".