Cited by 227

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

The E6 and E7 genes of human papillomavirus type 6 have weak immortalizing activity in human epithelial cells

Halbert, C L, Demers, G W, Galloway, D A·1992·Journal of Virology

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that the E7 gene of human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16 or 18 alone was sufficient for immortalization of human foreskin epithelial cells (HFE) and that the efficiency was increased in cooperation with the respective E6 gene, whereas the HPV6 E6 or E7 gene was not active in HFE. To detect weak immortalizing activities of the HPV6 genes, cells were infected with recombinant retroviruses containing HPV genes, alone and in homologous and heterologous combinations. The HPV6 genes, alone or together (HPV6 E6 plus HPV6 E7), were not able to immortalize cells. However the HPV6 E6 gene, in concert with HPV16 E7, increased the frequency of immortalization threefold over that obtained with HPV16 E7 alone. Interestingly, 6 of 20 clones containing the HPV16 E6 gene and the HPV6 E7 gene were immortalized, whereas neither gene alone was sufficient. Thus, the HPV6 E6 and E7 genes have weak immortalizing activities which can be detected in cooperation with the more active transforming genes of HPV16. Acute expression of the HPV6 and HPV16 E6 and E7 genes revealed that only HPV16 E7 was able to stimulate the proliferation of cells in organotypic culture, resulting in increased expression of the proliferative cell nuclear antigen and the formation of a disorganized epithelial layer. Additionally, combinations of genes that immortalized HFE cells (HPV16 E6 plus HPV16 E7, HPV16 E6 plus HPV6 E7, and HPV6 E6 plus HPV16 E7) also stimulated proliferation.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/jvi.66.4.2125-2134.1992

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Halbert, C. L., Demers, G. W., & Galloway, D. A.
Affiliations
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington 98104-2092.
Venue
Journal of Virology
Published
1992-04
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
2125-2134
ISSN
  • 0022-538X
  • 1098-5514
Cited by
227
References
2
Language
en

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