Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24598770›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Nanog1 in NTERA-2 and recombinant NanogP8 from somatic cancer cells adopt multiple protein conformations and migrate at multiple M.W species.

Bigang Liu, Mark D Badeaux, Grace Choy, Dhyan Chandra, Irvin Shen, Collene R Jeter, Kiera Rycaj, Chia-Fang Lee, Maria D Person, Can Liu and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Bigang LiuDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas M.D Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, Texas, United States of America.
Mark D BadeauxDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas M.D Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, Texas, United States of America.
Grace ChoyDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas M.D Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, Texas, United States of America.
Dhyan ChandraDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas M.D Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, Texas, United States of America.
Irvin ShenDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas M.D Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, Texas, United States of America.
Collene R JeterDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas M.D Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, Texas, United States of America.
Kiera RycajDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas M.D Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, Texas, United States of America.
Chia-Fang LeeCollege of Pharmacy, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Maria D PersonCollege of Pharmacy, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, United States of America.
Can LiuDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas M.D Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, Texas, United States of America.
Yueping ChenDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas M.D Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, Texas, United States of America.
Jianjun ShenDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas M.D Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, Texas, United States of America.
Sung Yun JungDepartment of Biochemistry, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Jun QinDepartment of Biochemistry, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Dean G TangDepartment of Molecular Carcinogenesis, University of Texas M.D Anderson Cancer Center, Science Park, Smithville, Texas, United States of America; Cancer Stem Cell Institute, Research Center for Translational Medicine, East Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USBaylor College of Medicine · US

Funding

Pilot Project ProgramP30ES007784 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI RICHIE, ELLEN R · 1996 to 2011
$16.4M
Decoding NanogP8 in TumorigenesisR01CA155693 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI TANG, DEAN G. · 2012 to 2016
$1.6M
Genome-wide association study of cutaneous squamous cell carincomaR01CA166672 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI ASGARI, MARYAM MANDANA · 2013 to 2016
$1.3M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA166672NCI NIH HHS R01 CA155693NCI NIH HHS R01-CA155693NCI NIH HHS R01 CA166672NIEHS NIH HHS ES007784NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES007784
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human Nanog1 is a 305-amino acid (aa) homeodomain-containing transcription factor critical for the pluripotency of embryonic stem (ES) and embryonal carcinoma (EC) cells. Somatic cancer cells predominantly express a retrogene homolog of Nanog1 called NanogP8, which is ~99% similar to Nanog at the aa level. Although the predicted M.W of Nanog1/NanogP8 is ∼35 kD, both have been reported to migrate, on Western blotting (WB), at apparent molecular masses of 29-80 kD. Whether all these reported protein bands represent authentic Nanog proteins is unclear. Furthermore, detailed biochemical studies on Nanog1/NanogpP8 have been lacking. By combining WB using 8 anti-Nanog1 antibodies, immunoprecipitation, mass spectrometry, and studies using recombinant proteins, here we provide direct evidence that the Nanog1 protein in NTERA-2 EC cells exists as multiple M.W species from ~22 kD to 100 kD with a major 42 kD band detectable on WB. We then demonstrate that recombinant NanogP8 (rNanogP8) proteins made in bacteria using cDNAs from multiple cancer cells also migrate, on denaturing SDS-PAGE, at ~28 kD to 180 kD. Interestingly, different anti-Nanog1 antibodies exhibit differential reactivity towards rNanogP8 proteins, which can spontaneously form high M.W protein species. Finally, we show that most long-term cultured cancer cell lines seem to express very low levels of or different endogenous NanogP8 protein that cannot be readily detected by immunoprecipitation. Altogether, the current study reveals unique biochemical properties of Nanog1 in EC cells and NanogP8 in somatic cancer cells.

Indexed as

Amino Acid SequenceBlotting, WesternCell Line, TumorElectrophoresis, Polyacrylamide GelGene Knockdown TechniquesHomeodomain ProteinsHumansMolecular Sequence DataMolecular WeightNanog Homeobox ProteinNeoplastic Stem CellsProtein IsoformsSpectrometry, Mass, Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption-IonizationTandem Mass SpectrometryHomeodomain ProteinsNanog Homeobox ProteinNANOG protein, humanProtein Isoforms

Identifiers

PMID24598770
PMCPMC3944193
OpenAlexW2113580837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.