MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114198922 · doi:10.1091/mbc.e13-02-0110

CHES1/FOXN3 regulates cell proliferation by repressing PIM2 and protein biosynthesis

2014· article· en· W2114198922 on OpenAlexaff
Geneviève Huot, Mathieu Vernier, Véronique Bourdeau, Laurent Doucet, Emmanuelle Saint‐Germain, Marie‐France Gaumont‐Leclerc, Alejandro Moro, Gerardo Ferbeyre

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology of the Cell · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicFOXO transcription factor regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsBiologyCell growthCell cycleTranscription factorCell biologyProtein biosynthesisKinaseBiogenesisMolecular biologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The expression of the forkhead transcription factor checkpoint suppressor 1 (CHES1), also known as FOXN3, is reduced in many types of cancers. We show here that CHES1 decreases protein synthesis and cell proliferation in tumor cell lines but not in normal fibroblasts. Conversely, short hairpin RNA-mediated depletion of CHES1 increases tumor cell proliferation. Growth suppression depends on the CHES1 forkhead DNA-binding domain and correlates with the nuclear localization of CHES1. CHES1 represses the expression of multiple genes, including the kinases PIM2 and DYRK3, which regulate protein biosynthesis, and a number of genes in cilium biogenesis. CHES1 binds directly to the promoter of PIM2, and in cells expressing CHES1 the levels of PIM2 are reduced, as well as the phosphorylation of the PIM2 target 4EBP1. Overexpression of PIM2 or eIF4E partially reverses the antiproliferative effect of CHES1, indicating that PIM2 and protein biosynthesis are important targets of the antiproliferative effect of CHES1. In several human hematopoietic cancers, CHES1 and PIM2 expressions are inversely correlated, suggesting that repression of PIM2 by CHES1 is clinically relevant.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.531

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations43
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology of the CellSame topicFOXO transcription factor regulationFrench-language works237,207