MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2501516153 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0160344

Threshold Levels of Gfi1 Maintain E2A Activity for B Cell Commitment via Repression of Id1

2016· article· en· W2501516153 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer Fraszczak, Anne Helness, Riyan Chen, Charles Vadnais, François Robert, Cyrus Khandanpour, Tarik Möröy

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBlood disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDeutsche Krebshilfe
KeywordsMyeloidHaematopoiesisTranscription factorBiologyProgenitor cellPsychological repressionLymphopoiesisB cellCell biologyCancer researchGene knockdownStem cellMolecular biologyGeneGeneticsGene expressionAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A regulatory circuit that controls myeloid versus B lymphoid cell fate in hematopoietic progenitors has been proposed, in which a network of the transcription factors Egr1/2, Nab, Gfi1 and PU.1 forms the core element. Here we show that a direct link between Gfi1, the transcription factor E2A and its inhibitor Id1 is a critical element of this regulatory circuit. Our data suggest that a certain threshold of Gfi1 is required to gauge E2A activity by adjusting levels of Id1 in multipotent progenitors, which are the first bipotential myeloid/lymphoid-restricted progeny of hematopoietic stem cells. If Gfi1 levels are high, Id1 is repressed enabling E2A to activate a specific set of B lineage genes by binding to regulatory elements for example the IL7 receptor gene. If Gfi1 levels fall below a threshold, Id1 expression increases and renders E2A unable to function, which prevents hematopoietic progenitors from engaging along the B lymphoid lineage.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicBlood disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207