Abstract 4646: Loss of nuclear HoxA10 is associated with proliferation of testicular germ cell tumors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: HOXA10 is a key transcriptional factor that regulates testis development as reported from previous transgenic mouse models and human inherited diseases. However, whether it also plays important roles in promoting the development of testicular cancer is not well understood. Objective: To study the expression of HOXA10 and its regulated signaling pathways in testicular cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: A tissue microarray was constructed with benign and cancerous testis. TCam2, NT-2, and NCCIT cell models were applied in this study. Intervention: Immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence were performed to measure the expression and cellular localization of HOXA10 in testicular cancer tissues and cell models. Cell proliferation and cell cycling rates were determined by BrdU incorporation and flow cytometry assays. HOXA10 transcriptomes were profiled with Ampliseq RNA-seq in testicular cancer cells. Immunoblotting assays were used to detect HOXA10-regulated signaling. Results: HOXA10 is a nuclear protein in benign spermatocytes. Reduced nuclear expression and increased cytoplasmic expression of HOXA10 are associated with testicular cancers. These changes are consistent in both seminoma and non-seminoma. Enhanced HOXA10 expression in testicular cancer cell models inhibits cell proliferation and delays cell cycle progression through G2/M phases. These functions of HOXA10 mainly affect the TP53, cKit, STAT3, AKT and ERK signaling pathways. Conclusions: Loss of nuclear functions of HOXA10 enhances proliferation of testicular cancer cells, suggesting that downregulation of HOXA10 transcription activity may promote the development of testicular cancers. Citation Format: RuiQi Chen, Haolong Li, Yinan Li, Ladan Fazli, Martin Gleave, Lucia Nappi, Xuesen Dong. Loss of nuclear HoxA10 is associated with proliferation of testicular germ cell tumors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 4646.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".