MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190409097 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1009686

A ubiquitin-like protein encoded by the “noncoding” RNA TINCR promotes keratinocyte proliferation and wound healing

2021· article· en· W3190409097 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Akihiro Nita, Akinobu Matsumoto, Ronghao Tang, Chisa Shiraishi, Kazuya Ichihara, Daisuke Saito, Mikita Suyama, Tomoharu Yasuda, Gaku Tsuji, Masutaka Furue, Bumpei Katayama, Toshiyuki Ozawa, Teruasa Murata, Teruki Dainichi, Kenji Kabashima, Atsushi Hatano, Masaki Matsumoto, Keiichi I. Nakayama

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Genetics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsBiologyKeratinocyteOpen reading frameCell biologyUbiquitinRegeneration (biology)Wound healingMolecular biologyGeneticsPeptide sequenceGeneCell culture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) are transcripts that do not encode proteins by definition, some lncRNAs actually contain small open reading frames that are translated. TINCR (terminal differentiation-induced ncRNA) has been recognized as a lncRNA that contributes to keratinocyte differentiation. However, we here show that TINCR encodes a ubiquitin-like protein that is well conserved among species and whose expression was confirmed by the generation of mice harboring a FLAG epitope tag sequence in the endogenous open reading frame as well as by targeted proteomics. Forced expression of this protein promoted cell cycle progression in normal human epidermal keratinocytes, and mice lacking this protein manifested a delay in skin wound healing associated with attenuated cell cycle progression in keratinocytes. We termed this protein TINCR-encoded ubiquitin-like protein (TUBL), and our results reveal a role for TINCR in the regulation of keratinocyte proliferation and skin regeneration that is dependent on TUBL.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS GeneticsSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207