Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 199

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Epigenetic inactivation of CHFR in human tumors

Open access
Toyota, Minoru, Sasaki, Yasushi, Satoh, Ayumi, Ogi, Kazuhiro, Kikuchi, Takefumi, Suzuki, Hiromu, Mita, Hiroaki, Tanaka, Nobuyuki, Itoh, Fumio, Issa, Jean-Pierre J., Jair, Kam-Wing, Schuebel, Kornel E., Imai, Kohzoh, Tokino, Takashi·2003·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Cell-cycle checkpoints controlling the orderly progression through mitosis are frequently disrupted in human cancers. One such checkpoint, entry into metaphase, is regulated by the CHFR gene encoding a protein possessing forkhead-associated and RING finger domains as well as ubiquitin–ligase activity. Although defects in this checkpoint have been described, the molecular basis and prevalence of CHFR inactivation in human tumors are still not fully understood. To address this question, we analyzed the pattern of CHFR expression in a number of human cancer cell lines and primary tumors. We found CpG methylation-dependent silencing of CHFR expression in 45% of cancer cell lines, 40% of primary colorectal cancers, 53% of colorectal adenomas, and 30% of primary head and neck cancers. Expression of CHFR was precisely correlated with both CpG methylation and deacetylation of histones H3 and H4 in the CpG-rich regulatory region. Moreover, CpG methylation and thus silencing of CHFR depended on the activities of two DNA methyltransferases, DNMT1 and DNMT3b, as their genetic inactivation restored CHFR expression. Finally, cells with CHFR methylation had an intrinsically high mitotic index when treated with microtubule inhibitor. This means that cells in which CHFR was epigenetically inactivated constitute loss-of-function alleles for mitotic checkpoint control. Taken together, these findings shed light on a pathway by which mitotic checkpoint is bypassed in cancer cells and suggest that inactivation of checkpoint genes is much more widespread than previously suspected.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1337066100

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 199

Metadata

Authors
Toyota, M., Sasaki, Y., Satoh, A., Ogi, K., Kikuchi, T., Suzuki, H., Mita, H., Tanaka, N., Itoh, F., Issa, J.-P. J., Jair, K.-W., Schuebel, K. E., Imai, K., & Tokino, T.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2003-06-16
Volume
100
Issue
13
Pages
7818-7823
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2169453999
Cited by
199
References
2
FWCI
5.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Epigenetic inactivation of CHFR in human tumors. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1337066100
The paper
Toyota, M., Sasaki, Y., Satoh, A., Ogi, K., Kikuchi, T., Suzuki, H., Mita, H., Tanaka, N., Itoh, F., Issa, J.-P. J., Jair, K.-W., Schuebel, K. E., Imai, K., & Tokino, T. (2003). Epigenetic inactivation of CHFR in human tumors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1337066100

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.