ArticleMolecular biology of the cell2010
Distinct contributions of conserved modules to Runt transcription factor activity.
Article in Molecular biology of the cell, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A dual role for DNA binding by Runt in activation and repression ofMolecular biology of the cell · 2021Article
- Evidence That Runt Acts as a Counter-Repressor of Groucho DuringG3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2020Article
- Differential expression of primary pair-rule genes during bidirectional regeneration in Perionyx excavatus.Genes & genomics · 2018Article
- Different modes of enhancer-specific regulation by Runt and Even-skipped duringMolecular biology of the cell · 2017Article
- Article
- Direct recruitment of polycomb repressive complex 1 to chromatin by core binding transcription factors.Molecular cell · 2012Article
- Hairless is a cofactor for Runt-dependent transcriptional regulation.Molecular biology of the cell · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Runx proteins play vital roles in regulating transcription in numerous developmental pathways throughout the animal kingdom. Two Runx protein hallmarks are the DNA-binding Runt domain and a C-terminal VWRPY motif that mediates interaction with TLE/Gro corepressor proteins. A phylogenetic analysis of Runt, the founding Runx family member, identifies four distinct regions C-terminal to the Runt domain that are conserved in Drosophila and other insects. We used a series of previously described ectopic expression assays to investigate the functions of these different conserved regions in regulating gene expression during embryogenesis and in controlling axonal projections in the developing eye. The results indicate each conserved region is required for a different subset of activities and identify distinct regions that participate in the transcriptional activation and repression of the segmentation gene sloppy-paired-1 (slp1). Interestingly, the C-terminal VWRPY-containing region is not required for repression but instead plays a role in slp1 activation. Genetic experiments indicating that Groucho (Gro) does not participate in slp1 regulation further suggest that Runt's conserved C-terminus interacts with other factors to promote transcriptional activation. These results provide a foundation for further studies on the molecular interactions that contribute to the context-dependent properties of Runx proteins as developmental regulators.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.