MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045479279 · doi:10.1002/pros.20059

Androgen responsiveness of <i>Renilla</i> luciferase reporter vectors is promoter, transgene, and cell line dependent

2004· article· en· W2045479279 on OpenAlexaff
David J. Mulholland, Michael Cox, Jason T. Read, Paul S. Rennie, Colleen Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prostate · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in Insects
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuciferaseLNCaPAndrogen receptorBiologyDihydrotestosteroneTransfectionAndrogenTransgeneReporter geneMolecular biologyCell cultureGlucocorticoid receptorCell biologyReceptorProstate cancerGene expressionEndocrinologyGeneBiochemistryGeneticsHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renilla based reporters are frequently used as transfection controls for luciferase transcriptional reporter assays. However, recent evidence suggests that a commonly used reporter (HSV-thymidine kinase driven Renilla) is responsive to androgen receptor (AR) and glucocorticoid receptors in the presence of the cognate ligands, dihydrotestosterone (DHT) and dexamethasone (DEX), respectively [1]. We further validate this important technical difficulty by illustrating that in LNCaP prostate cancer cells, spurious Renilla luciferase activity is a function of (a) the promoter driving Renilla expression, (b) the presence of co-transfected transgenes, and (c) the androgen responsiveness of the cell line used. Using inhibitors of transcription and translation we showed that transcript interference or translational modulation is not a major means by which androgens affect Renilla luciferase activity. As luciferase reporter assays are a frequent means of studying transcriptional co-regulation in the highly androgen dependent LNCaP cell line, our data serves as a cautionary note that alternative normalization techniques should be employed to avoid misinterpretation of data.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations23
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe ProstateSame topicViral Infectious Diseases and Gene Expression in InsectsFrench-language works237,207