MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401470131 · doi:10.1111/acel.14301

A defective splicing machinery promotes senescence through MDM4 alternative splicing

2024· article· en· W4401470131 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathieu Deschênes, Mathieu Durand, Marc‐Alexandre Olivier, Alicia Pellerin‐Viger, Françis Rodier, Benoı̂t Chabot

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Cell · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSpliceosomeRNA splicingSenescenceBiologyAlternative splicingCell biologyTelomereGeneticsGeneExonRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Defects in the splicing machinery are implicated in various diseases, including cancer. We observed a general reduction in the expression of spliceosome components and splicing regulators in human cell lines undergoing replicative, stress-induced, and telomere uncapping-induced senescence. Supporting the view that defective splicing contributes to senescence, splicing inhibitors herboxidiene, and pladienolide B induced senescence in normal and cancer cell lines. Furthermore, depleting individual spliceosome components also promoted senescence. All senescence types were associated with an alternative splicing transition from the MDM4-FL variant to MDM4-S. The MDM4 splicing shift was reproduced when splicing was inhibited, and spliceosome components were depleted. While decreasing the level of endogenous MDM4 promoted senescence and cell survival independently of the MDM4-S expression status, cell survival was also improved by increasing MDM4-S. Overall, our work establishes that splicing defects modulate the alternative splicing of MDM4 to promote senescence and cell survival.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging CellSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207