MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213630353 · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27024-x

G3BP1 inhibits Cul3SPOP to amplify AR signaling and promote prostate cancer

2021· article· en· W3213630353 on OpenAlexaff
Chandrani Mukhopadhyay, Chenyi Yang, Limei Xu, Deli Liu, Yu Wang, Dennis Huang, Lesa D. Deonarine, Joanna Cyrta, Elai Davicioni, Andrea Sboner, Brian D. Robinson, Arul M. Chinnaiyan, Mark A. Rubin, Christopher E. Barbieri, Pengbo Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsGenome British Columbia
FundersCleveland ClinicNational Cancer InstituteU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesProstate Cancer FoundationJohns Hopkins UniversityWeill Cornell Medical CollegeU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsUbiquitin ligaseUbiquitinBiologyProstate cancerCancer researchCell biologyCancerGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract SPOP, an E3 ubiquitin ligase, acts as a prostate-specific tumor suppressor with several key substrates mediating oncogenic function. However, the mechanisms underlying SPOP regulation are largely unknown. Here, we have identified G3BP1 as an interactor of SPOP and functions as a competitive inhibitor of Cul3 SPOP , suggesting a distinctive mode of Cul3 SPOP inactivation in prostate cancer (PCa). Transcriptomic analysis and functional studies reveal a G3BP1-SPOP ubiquitin signaling axis that promotes PCa progression through activating AR signaling. Moreover, AR directly upregulates G3BP1 transcription to further amplify G3BP1-SPOP signaling in a feed-forward manner. Our study supports a fundamental role of G3BP1 in disabling the tumor suppressive Cul3 SPOP , thus defining a PCa cohort independent of SPOP mutation. Therefore, there are significantly more PCa that are defective for SPOP ubiquitin ligase than previously appreciated, and these G3BP1 high PCa are more susceptible to AR-targeted therapy.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations36
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207