Notch signaling is significantly suppressed in basal cell carcinomas and activation induces basal cell carcinoma cell apoptosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A subset of basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) are directly derived from hair follicles (HFs). In some respects, HFs can be defined as 'ordered' skin appendage growths, while BCCs can be regarded as 'disordered' skin appendage growths. The aim of the present study was to examine HFs and BCCs to define the expression of common and unique signaling pathways in each skin appendage. Human nodular BCCs, along with HFs and non‑follicular skin epithelium from normal individuals, were examined using microarrays, qPCR, and immunohistochemistry. Subsequently, BCC cells and root sheath keratinocyte cells from HFs were cultured and treated with Notch signaling peptide Jagged1 (JAG1). Gene expression, protein levels, and cell apoptosis susceptibility were assessed using qPCR, immunoblotting, and flow cytometry, respectively. Specific molecular mechanisms were found to be involved in the process of cell self‑renewal in the HFs and BCCs, including Notch and Hedgehog signaling pathways. However, several key Notch signaling factors showed significant differential expression in BCCs compared with HFs. Stimulating Notch signaling with JAG1 induced apoptosis of BCC cells by increasing Fas ligand expression and downstream caspase-8 activation. The present study showed that Notch signaling pathway activity is suppressed in BCCs, and is highly expressed in HFs. Elements of the Notch pathway could, therefore, represent targets for the treatment of BCCs and potentially in hair follicle engineering.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".