↓ Skip to main content

Role of stress-activated OCT4A in the cell fate decisions of embryonal carcinoma cells treated with etoposide

Overview of attention for article published in Cell Cycle, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Role of stress-activated OCT4A in the cell fate decisions of embryonal carcinoma cells treated with etoposide
Published in
Cell Cycle, July 2015
DOI 10.1080/15384101.2015.1056948
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anda Huna, Kristine Salmina, Jekaterina Erenpreisa, Alejandro Vazquez-Martin, Jekabs Krigerts, Inna Inashkina, Bogdan I Gerashchenko, Paul A Townsend, Mark S Cragg, Thomas R Jackson

Abstract

Tumour cellular senescence induced by genotoxic treatments has recently been found to be paradoxically linked to the induction of "stemness". This observation is critical as it directly impinges upon the response of tumours to current chemo-radio-therapy treatment regimens. Previously, we showed that following etoposide (ETO) treatment embryonal carcinoma PA-1 cells undergo a p53-dependent upregulation of OCT4A and p21Cip1 (governing self-renewal and regulating cell cycle inhibition and senescence, respectively). Here we report further detail on the relationship between these and other critical cell-fate regulators. PA-1 cells treated with ETO display highly heterogeneous increases in OCT4A and p21Cip1 indicative of dis-adaptation catastrophe. Silencing OCT4A suppresses p21Cip1, changes cell cycle regulation and subsequently suppresses terminal senescence; p21Cip1-silencing did not affect OCT4A expression or cellular phenotype. SOX2 and NANOG expression did not change following ETO treatment suggesting a dissociation of OCT4A from its pluripotency function. Instead, ETO-induced OCT4A was concomitant with activation of AMPK, a key component of metabolic stress and autophagy regulation. p16ink4a, the inducer of terminal senescence, underwent autophagic sequestration in the cytoplasm of ETO-treated cells, allowing alternative cell fates. Accordingly, failure of autophagy was accompanied by an accumulation of p16ink4a, nuclear disintegration, and loss of cell recovery. Together, these findings imply that OCT4A induction following DNA damage in PA-1 cells, performs a cell stress, rather than self-renewal, function by moderating the expression of p21Cip1, which alongside AMPK helps to then regulate autophagy. Moreover, this data indicates that exhaustion of autophagy, through persistent DNA damage, is the cause of terminal cellular senescence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 4%
Ukraine 1 4%
Unknown 24 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Professor 2 8%
Other 7 27%
Unknown 2 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 27%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 2 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,817,410
of 22,815,414 outputs
Outputs from Cell Cycle
#1,974
of 3,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,336
of 262,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell Cycle
#38
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,815,414 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,685 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.