Data from Tumor-Suppressive Effects of Pannexin 1 in C6 Glioma Cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mammalian gap junction proteins, connexins, have long been implicated in tumor suppression. Recently, a novel family of proteins named pannexins has been identified as the mammalian counterpart of the invertebrate gap junction proteins, innexins. To date, pannexin 1 (Panx1) and pannexin 2 (Panx2) mRNAs are reported to be expressed in the brain. Most neoplastic cells, including rat C6 gliomas, exhibit reduced connexin expression, aberrant gap junctional intercellular communication (GJIC), and an increased proliferation rate. When gap junctions are up-regulated by transfecting C6 cells with connexin43, GJIC is restored and the proliferation is reduced. In this study, we examined the tumor-suppressive effects of Panx1 expression in C6 cells. Reverse transcription-PCR analysis revealed that C6 cells do not express any of the pannexin transcripts, whereas its nontumorigenic counterpart, rat primary astrocytes, exhibited mRNAs for all three pannexins. On generation of stable C6 transfectants with tagged Panx1 [myc or enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP)], a localization of Panx1 expression to the Golgi apparatus and plasma membrane was observed. In addition, Panx1 transfectants exhibited a flattened morphology, which differs greatly from the spindle-shaped control cells (EGFP only). Moreover, Panx1 expression increased gap junctional coupling as shown by the passage of sulforhodamine 101. Finally, we showed that stable expression of Panx1 in C6 cells significantly reduced cell proliferation in monolayers, cell motility, anchorage-independent growth, and in vivo tumor growth in athymic nude mice. Altogether, we conclude that the loss of pannexin expression may participate in the development of C6 gliomas, whereas restoration of Panx1 plays a tumor-suppressive role. [Cancer Res 2007;67(4):1545–54]
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".