MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090651585 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-11-3589

The Mixed Lineage Leukemia (MLL) Fusion–Associated Gene <i>AF4</i> Promotes CD133 Transcription

2012· article· en· W2090651585 on OpenAlexafffund
Anthony B. Mak, Allison M.L. Nixon, Jason Moffat

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsFusion geneGeneLeukemiaBiologyGeneticsLineage (genetic)Transcription factorCancer researchComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The AC133 epitope has been used as a marker for both normal and cancer stem cells from multiple tissue lineages. To identify transcription factors that regulate CD133 expression, we conducted parallel large-scale RNA interference screens in Caco-2 cancer cells that endogenously express CD133 and in engineered HEK293 cells that express CD133 from a heterologous promoter. The transcription factor AF4 was identified following a comparative analysis between the two screens. We then showed that AF4 is a promoter of CD133 transcription in multiple cancer cell lines. Knockdown of AF4 resulted in a dramatic reduction in CD133 transcript levels. Importantly, a subset of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemias (ALL) harbor a fusion oncogene results from a chromosomal translocation that juxtaposes the mixed-lineage leukemia (MLL) gene and the AF4 gene. An investigation of the functional role of CD133 in the MLL-AF4-dependent ALL cells revealed that CD133 was required for leukemia cell survival. Together, our findings show AF4-dependent regulation of CD133 expression, which is required for the growth of ALL cells. CD133 may therefore represent a therapeutic target in a subset of cancers.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.297 · 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.

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

Citations54
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207