MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corepressors LCoR and KAP1 form a complex with the transcription factor ZBRK1 to silence FGF2 gene expression and maintain breast cancer cell viability

2013· article· en· W3176442074 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mario R. Calderon, Mark Verway, Sylvie Mader, John H. White

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicKruppel-like factors research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorepressorTranscription factorBiologyGene knockdownCancer researchViability assayBreast cancerCancer cellCell biologyCancerGeneRepressorCellGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through the use of a yeast two‐hybrid screen, we have a found a novel interaction between the C‐terminal domain of the transcriptional coregulator ligand‐dependent corepressor (LCoR) and the transcriptional corepressor Kruppel‐associated protein‐1 (KAP‐1). These transcriptional regulators associate with the transcription factor ZBRK1 and repress the expression of the Fibroblast Growth Factor 2 (FGF2) and Growth Arrest and DNA‐Damage‐inducible alpha (GADD45A) genes in breast cancer cell lines. Remarkably, ablation of ZBRK1, KAP‐1, or LCoR expression led to apoptotic death of specific breast cancer cells. This loss of viability could be partly rescued by simultaneous knockdown of FGF2, which abrogated the elevated FGF2 production in ZBRK1‐, KAP‐1, or LCoR‐deficient cells. Studies show that more malignant phenotypes in breast cancer are associated with loss of FGF2 expression, although the mechanism of this loss is poorly understood. We propose that ZBRK1, KAP‐1, and LCoR form a transcriptional complex that silences expression of genes, in particular FGF2, which enhances specific breast cancer cell viability. Research funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).

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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicKruppel-like factors researchFrench-language works237,207