MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139818579 · doi:10.1196/annals.1378.026

Prevention of p53 Degradation in Human MCF‐7 Cells by Proteasome Inhibitors Does Not Mimic the Action of Roscovitine

2006· article· en· W2139818579 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Carmen Ranftler, Marieta Gueorguieva, Józefa Węsierska‐Gądek

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related Molecular Pathways
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité Laval
KeywordsProteasomeMCF-7RegulatorDownregulation and upregulationProteasome inhibitorProtein degradationCell biologyCancer researchKinaseChemistryCancer cellBiologyCancerBiochemistryHuman breastGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have recently observed activation of wild-type (wt) p53 protein in human MCF-7 breast cancer cells upon treatment with roscovitine (ROSC), a potent cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor. It has been previously suggested that ROSC repressed transcription of Mdm-2, a negative p53 regulator, and that the lack of Mdm-2 contributes to the ROSC-induced upregulation of p53 protein. Therefore, we decided to see whether the prevention of p53 degradation by proteasome inhibitors will mimic the effects generated by ROSC. Exposure of human MCF-7 cells to different proteasome inhibitors resulted in a time-dependent increase of p53. However, unlike ROSC, they failed to modify p53 protein at Ser46 and to induce p53AIP1 protein. Moreover, whereas ROSC arrested MCF-7 cells in the G2-phase of the cell cycle, proteasome inhibitors blocked cells primarily in the S-phase, presumably because of the prevention of cyclin degradation. Our results indicate that prevention of p53 degradation by proteasome inhibitors does not mimic the action of ROSC.

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)0.001
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 score0.242

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicCancer-related Molecular PathwaysFrench-language works237,207