MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097726306 · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.can-07-1528

A <i>CDKN2A</i> Mutation in Familial Melanoma that Abrogates Binding of p16INK4a to CDK4 but not CDK6

2007· article· en· W2097726306 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca Jones, Margarida Ruas, Fiona J Gregory, Stéphanie Moulin, Domenico Delia, Siranoush Manoukian, Janice Rowe, Sharon Brookes, Gordon Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCDKN2Ap14arfCyclin-dependent kinase 6BiologyCancer researchExonMelanomaMutationGeneticsSenescenceMolecular biologyCell cycleGeneTumor suppressor geneCarcinogenesisCyclin-dependent kinase

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CDKN2A locus encodes two distinct proteins, p16INK4a and p14ARF, both of which are implicated in replicative senescence and tumor suppression in different contexts. Here, we describe the characterization of a novel strain of human diploid fibroblasts (designated Milan HDFs) from an individual who is homozygous for the R24P mutation in p16INK4a. As this mutation occurs in the first exon of INK4a (exon 1alpha), it has no effect on the primary sequence of p14(ARF). Based on both in vitro and in vivo analyses, the R24P variant is specifically defective for binding to CDK4 but remains able to associate with CDK6. Nevertheless, Milan HDFs behave as if they are p16INK4a deficient, in terms of sensitivity to spontaneous and oncogene-induced senescence, and the R24P variant has little effect on proliferation when ectopically expressed in normal fibroblasts. It can, however, impair the proliferation of U20S cells, presumably because they express more CDK6 than primary fibroblasts. These observations suggest that CDK4 and CDK6 are not functionally redundant and underscore the importance of CDK4 in the development of melanoma.

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)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations49
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207