MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081346894 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2015.03.019

E4F1 Is a Master Regulator of CHK1-Mediated Functions

2015· article· en· W2081346894 on OpenAlexafffund
David Grote, Céline Moison, Stéphanie Duhamel, Jalila Chagraoui, Simon Girard, Jay Yang, Nadine Mayotte, Yan Coulombe, Jean‐Yves Masson, Grant W. Brown, Sylvain Meloche, Guy Sauvageau

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCell biologyBiologyRegulatorMitosisCHEK1Genome instabilityDNA damageHaematopoiesisCell cycleStem cellProgenitor cellEctopic expressionCell cycle checkpointG2-M DNA damage checkpointDNA replicationCancer researchApoptosisDNAGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been previously shown that the polycomb protein BMI1 and E4F1 interact physically and genetically in the hematopoietic system. Here, we report that E4f1 is essential for hematopoietic cell function and survival. E4f1 deletion induces acute bone marrow failure characterized by apoptosis of progenitors while stem cells are preserved. E4f1-deficient cells accumulate DNA damage and show defects in progression through S phase and mitosis, revealing a role for E4F1 in cell-cycle progression and genome integrity. Importantly, we showed that E4F1 interacts with and protects the checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1) protein from degradation. Finally, defects observed in E4f1-deficient cells were fully reversed by ectopic expression of Chek1. Altogether, our results classify E4F1 as a master regulator of CHK1 activity that ensures high fidelity of DNA replication, thus safeguarding genome stability.

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 score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207