Involvement of proapoptotic genes in autophagic cell death induced by irradiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Irradiation is widely used in anticancer therapy; however, the efficiency is limited. Most cancer cells have mutations in apoptosis that they can easily escape the apoptosis induced by irradiation. Autophagy has been known as type II programmed cell death that can be activated by irradiation, especially when apoptosis is blocked, but the underlying molecular mechanism is largely unknown. We demonstrated that proapoptotic genes PUMA and Bid are involved in the regulation of autophagic cell death. When wild-type (WT), Bax−/− and PUMA−/− HCT116 cells were exposed to irradiation, we found that, compared with WT, Bax−/− cells showed significantly decreased cell death because of Bax deficiency; however, surprisingly PUMA−/− cells showed significant increase in cell death although the proapoptotic gene PUMA was knocked out. By analyzing apoptosis via Annexin V-fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) assay with flow cytometry, both Bax−/− and PUMA−/− cells showed less apoptosis than WT, suggesting the existence of another type of cell death in PUMA−/− cells. Autophagy was then examined in three cell lines by counting the percentage of cells with punctate GFP-LC3. Although all three cell lines showed significantly increased autophagy activity after irradiation, that of PUMA−/− cells was much higher than the other two cell lines, which suggests that PUMA−/− cells may die through autophagy. This was then confirmed by the decreased cell death in PUMA−/− cells when autophagy was blocked by 3-MA. In addition, we also tested the responses of WT and Bid−/− MEFs to irradiation. Bid−/− MEFs but not WT died through autophagy after irradiation. These results imply the involvement of apoptosis-associated genes such as PUMA and Bid in autophagic cell death, which contributes to identifying the molecular mechanism by which autophagy drives cells to death.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".