ArticleMolecular and cellular biochemistry2013
Transcriptional directionality of the human insulin-degrading enzyme promoter.
Article in Molecular and cellular biochemistry, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Determinants of Directionality in Transcriptional Initiation.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2016Review
- A long non-coding RNA links calreticulin-mediated immunogenic cell removal to RB1 transcription.Oncogene · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unidirectional promoters dominate among mammalian genomes. However, the mechanism through which the transcriptional directionality of promoters is accomplished remains to be clarified. Insulin-degrading enzyme (IDE) is a ubiquitously expressed zinc metalloprotease, whose promoter contains a CpG island. We previously showed that the basal promoter region of mouse IDE has bidirectional transcriptional activity, but an upstream promoter element blocks its antisense transcription. Therefore, we wonder whether the human IDE promoter contains an analogous element. Similarly, the basal promoter region of human IDE (-102 ~ +173 and -196 ~ +173 relative to the transcription start site) showed bidirectional transcriptional activity. However, the region from -348 to +173 could only be transcribed from the normal orientation, implying that an upstream promoter element between -348 and -196 blocks the antisense transcription of the human IDE promoter. Through promoter deletion and mutagenesis analysis, we mapped this element precisely and found that the upstream promoter element locates between -318 and -304. Furthermore, the transcription-blocking elements in the mouse and human IDE promoters inhibited the transcription of the SV40 promoter when put downstream of it. In conclusion, we identify an upstream promoter element which blocks the antisense transcription of the human IDE promoter. Our studies are helpful to clarify the transcriptional directionality of promoters.
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.