MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418163513 · doi:10.1038/srep22066

Pygo2 functions as a prognostic factor for glioma due to its up-regulation of H3K4me3 and promotion of MLL1/MLL2 complex recruitment

2016· article· en· W2418163513 on OpenAlexaff
Cefan Zhou, Yi Zhang, Jun Dai, Mengzhou Zhou, Miao Liu, Yefu Wang, Xing‐Zhen Chen, Jingfeng Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related gene regulation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersHubei UniversityHubei University of Technology
KeywordsWnt signaling pathwayH3K4me3BiologyCancer researchGliomaHistoneEpigeneticsBioinformaticsSignal transductionCell biologyGeneticsPromoterGene expressionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pygo2 has been discovered as an important Wnt signaling component contributing to the activation of Wnt-target gene transcription. In the present study, we discovered that Pygo2 mRNA and protein levels were up-regulated in the majority of (152/209) human brain glioma tissues and five glioma cell lines, and significantly correlated with the age, the WHO tumor classification and poor patient survival. The histone methyltransferase complex components (WDR5, Ash2, and menin, but not CXCC1 or NCOA6) were down-regulated at the promoter loci of Wnt target genes after Pygo2 knockdown, and this was accompanied by the down-regulation of Wnt/β-catenin pathway activity. Further, we demonstrated that the involvement of Pygo2 in the activation of the Wnt pathway in human glioma progression is through up-regulation of the H3K4me3 (but not H3K4me2) by promoting the recruitment of the histone methyltransferase MLL1/MLL2 complex to Wnt target gene promoters. Thus, our study provided evidence that Pygo2 functions as a novel prognostic marker and represents a potential therapeutic target.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations40
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicCancer-related gene regulationFrench-language works237,207