BRCA1-Interacting Protein OLA1 Requires Interaction with BARD1 to Regulate Centrosome Number
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BRCA1 functions as a tumor suppressor in DNA repair and centrosome regulation. Previously, Obg-like ATPase 1 (OLA1) was shown to interact with BARD1, a heterodimer partner of BRCA1. OLA1 binds to BRCA1, BARD1, and γ-tubulin and functions in centrosome regulation. This study determined that overexpression of wild-type OLA1 (OLA1-WT) caused centrosome amplification due to centriole overduplication in mammary tissue–derived cells. Centrosome amplification induced by overexpression of the cancer-derived OLA1 mutant, which is deficient at regulating centrosome number, occurred in significantly fewer cells than in that induced by overexpression of OLA1-WT. Thus, it was hypothesized that overexpression of OLA1 with normal function efficiently induces centrosome amplification, but not that of OLA1 mutants, which are deficient at regulating centrosome number. We analyzed whether overexpression of OLA1 missense mutants of nine candidate phosphorylation residues, three residues modified with acetylation, and two ATP-binding residues caused centrosome amplification and identified five missense mutants that are deficient in the regulation of centrosome number. Three of them did not bind to BARD1. Two phosphomimetic mutations restored the binding to BARD1 and the efficient centrosome amplification by their overexpression. Knockdown and overexpression of BARD1 also caused centrosome amplification. BARD1 mutant reported in cancer failed to bind to OLA1 and rescue the BARD1 knockdown-induced centrosome amplification and reduced its centrosomal localization. Combined, these data reveal that the OLA1–BARD1 interaction is important for the regulation of centrosome number. Implications: Regulation of centrosome number by BRCA1/BARD1 together with OLA1 is important for the genome integrity to prevent tumor development. Mol Cancer Res; 16(10); 1499–511. ©2018 AACR.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".