<i>ets‐1</i> is transcriptionally up‐regulated by H <sub>2</sub> O <sub>2</sub> via an antioxidant response element
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expression of the transcription factor Ets-1 is increasingly associated with the progression of several human cancers. A tumor-derived factor is expected to be involved in the inappropriate up-regulation of ets-1 in tumor and surrounding cells. A link between hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and increased Ets-1 expression has also been suggested, leading to the proposal that this reactive oxygen species (ROS) may be an important factor in directly regulating the expression of ets-1 in tumor cells. Ets-1 expression in response to H2O2 was examined in an ovarian carcinoma cell model, and the genes promoter region was analyzed in order to identify putative elements involved in redox responsiveness. The up-regulation of Ets-1 by H2O2 was confirmed in the cells tested. Luciferase assays using constructs generated to test the contribution of specific promoter elements indicated that an antioxidant response element (ARE) is primarily involved in the H2O2-mediated induction. Gel shift analysis confirmed the increased binding of an Nrf2 containing protein complex to the ets-1 ARE after H2O2 treatment. This study has delineated a key element involved in the transcriptional regulation of ets-1 under basal and induced conditions. Ets-1 has obvious deleterious effects in many cancer cells, and thus, the identification of this regulatory pathway has provided possible targets for manipulating its expression.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".