Altered Expression of the Poly(ADP-Ribosyl)ation Enzymes in Uveal Melanoma and Regulation of<i>PARG</i>Gene Expression by the Transcription Factor ERM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation is a reversible post-translational modification that requires the contribution of the enzymes poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 (PARP-1) and poly(ADP-ribose) glycohydrolase (PARG). Our study explores expression and activity of PARP-1 and PARG in uveal melanoma cell lines with varying tumorigenic properties. METHODS: Gene profiling on microarrays was conducted using RNA prepared from the uveal melanoma cell lines T97, T98, T108, and T115. The activity of PARP-1 and PARG was monitored by enzymatic assays, whereas their expression was measured by Western blot and PCR. The PARG promoter was analyzed using promoter deletions and site-specific mutagenesis in transfection analyses. The transcription factors binding the PARG promoter were studied by electrophoretic mobility shift assay (EMSA) analyses. Suppression of PARP-1 and PARG expression was performed in T97 and T115 cells by RNAi, and their tumorigenic properties monitored by injections into athymic mice. RESULTS: Expression of PARP-1 was found to vary considerably between uveal melanoma cell lines with distinctive tumorigenic properties in vivo. Sp1 and the ETS protein ERM were shown to bind to the PARG gene promoter to ensure basal transcription in uveal melanoma. Importantly, suppression of PARG gene expression in T97 and T115 cells increased their capacity to form tumors in athymic mice, whereas suppression of PARP-1 significantly reduced or almost entirely abolished tumor formation. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that while overexpression of PARP-1 may confer a proliferative advantage to aggressive uveal melanoma tumors, PARG may, on the other hand, support a tumor suppressor function in vivo.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".