MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075543278 · doi:10.1099/vir.0.19679-0

Ubiquitination and proteasome degradation of the E6 proteins of human papillomavirus types 11 and 18

2004· article· en· W2075543278 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of General Virology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProteasomeBiologyCarcinogenesisUbiquitinOncogene ProteinsOncogeneProtein degradationCancer researchVirologyCancerCell biologyGeneticsRegulation of gene expressionCell cycleGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) are aetiological agents for genital warts and cervical cancer, the different pathologies of which are dependent on the type of HPV infection. Oncogenic HPV types associated with cancer are carcinogens by virtue of their oncogene products, which target key regulators of cell proliferation and apoptosis. The viral E6 protein from oncogenic HPV types plays a central role in carcinogenesis by exploiting the cellular proteasome degradation pathway in order to mediate the degradation of cellular proteins, most notably the prototype tumour suppressor protein p53. Much less is known about the cellular targets of E6 from the non-oncogenic HPV types associated with genital warts. It is also unclear what factors influence the level and stability of the viral E6 proteins in cells. This report demonstrates that both oncogenic and non-oncogenic HPV E6 proteins (from types 18 and 11, respectively) are ubiquitinated and targeted for degradation by the 26S proteasome. E6 domains required for the induction of p53 or DLG degradation, or E6AP binding, are not involved in proteasome-mediated degradation of HPV-18 E6. These results provide insight into the cellular modulation of E6 protein levels from both high-risk and low-risk HPV types.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.116

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of General VirologySame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207