MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract PR17: The transcriptional repressor Slug promotes the DNA damage response

2017· article· en· W2604131276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wenhui Zhou, Jian Ouyang, Kathryn E. Huber, Charlotte Kuperwasser

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Cancer Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlugDNA damageRepressorDNABiologyCarcinogenesisDNA repairCancerCancer researchCell biologyMolecular biologyGeneGeneticsTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The transcriptional repressor Slug/SNAI2 orchestrates epigenetic programs indispensable for tissue self-renewal and tumorigenesis. Although Slug-deficient animals are highly sensitive to lethal irradiation, the direct biological relationship between Slug and the DNA damage response remains largely unexplored. Here we report that Slug interacts with DNA repair proteins, including FANCI, BCCIP and PARP1, in a mass spectrometry screen for Slug binding partners. In response to double-strand breaks (DSBs) induced by irradiation, Slug-deficient cells exhibited a marked delay in the resolution of γH2ax foci. Furthermore, we showed that Slug inhibition significantly impaired DSBs repair that is mediated by homologous recombination. Accordingly, Slug-deficient mouse tissue accumulates DNA damage markers and showed altered nuclear morphology. Mechanistically, Slug interacts with and is stabilized by ATM upon DNA damage. Finally, we demonstrated that Slug depletion sensitizes aggressive triple-negative breast cancer cells to irradiation and chemotherapy. These findings suggest that Slug may be an important regulator of the DNA damage response and an attractive therapeutic target for aggressive cancer types. This abstract is also being presented as Poster B16. Citation Format: Wenhui Zhou, Jian Ouyang, Kathryn Huber, Charlotte Kuperwasser. The transcriptional repressor Slug promotes the DNA damage response [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference on DNA Repair: Tumor Development and Therapeutic Response; 2016 Nov 2-5; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Res 2017;15(4_Suppl):Abstract nr PR17.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.212
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Cancer ResearchSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207