MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107030151 · doi:10.1242/jcs.118315

A complex containing LPP and α-Actinin mediates TGFβ-induced migration and invasion of ErbB2-expressing breast cancer cells

2013· article· en· W2107030151 on OpenAlexafffund
Elaine Ngan, Jason J. Northey, Claire M. Brown, Josie Ursini‐Siegel, Peter M. Siegel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCellular Mechanics and Interactions
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsBiologyTransforming growth factorCancer researchBreast cancerPhenotypeCell migrationFocal adhesionCell biologyCancer cellEpithelial–mesenchymal transitionCancerMetastasisSignal transductionCellGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transforming growth factor β (TGFβ) is a potent modifier of the malignant phenotype in ErbB2-expressing breast cancers. We demonstrate that epithelial-derived breast cancer cells, which undergo a TGFβ-induced epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT), engage signaling molecules that normally facilitate cellular migration and invasion of mesenchymal cells. We identify lipoma preferred partner (LPP) as an indispensable regulator of TGFβ-induced migration and invasion of ErbB2-expressing breast cancer cells. We show that LPP re-localizes to focal adhesion complexes upon TGFβ stimulation and is a critical determinant in TGFβ-mediated focal adhesion turnover. Finally, we have determined that the interaction between LPP and α-actinin, an actin cross-linking protein, is necessary for TGFβ-induced migration and invasion of ErbB2-expressing breast cancer cells. Thus, our data reveal that LPP, which is normally operative in cells of mesenchymal origin, can be co-opted by breast cancer cells during an EMT to promote their migration and invasion.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations37
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicCellular Mechanics and InteractionsFrench-language works237,207