The DOI matches its Crossref record; 88 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 11 of the 29 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBPα Synergize with Different Regions of AML1
Open accessAbstract
Control elements of many genes are regulated by multiple activators working in concert to confer the maximal level of expression, but the mechanism of such synergy is not completely understood. The promoter of the human macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) receptor presents an excellent model with which we can study synergistic, tissue-specific activation for two reasons. First, myeloid-specific expression of the M-CSF receptor is regulated transcriptionally by three factors which are crucial for normal hematopoiesis: PU.1, AML1, and C/EBPalpha. Second, these proteins interact in such a way as to demonstrate at least two examples of synergistic activation. We have shown that AML1 and C/EBPalpha activate the M-CSF receptor promoter in a synergistic manner. As we report here, AML1 also synergizes, and interacts physically, with PU. 1. Detailed analysis of the physical and functional interaction of AML1 with PU.1 and C/EBPalpha has revealed that the proteins contact one another through their DNA-binding domains and that AML1 exhibits cooperative DNA binding with C/EBPalpha but not with PU.1. This difference in DNA-binding abilities may explain, in part, the differences observed in synergistic activation. Furthermore, the activation domains of all three factors are required for synergistic activation, and the region of AML1 required for synergy with PU.1 is distinct from that required for synergy with C/EBPalpha. These observations present the possibility that synergistic activation is mediated by secondary proteins contacted through the activation domains of AML1, C/EBPalpha, and PU.1.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
67 Own result · 17 Own interpretation · 6 No full text of the sources · 4 Partly supported · 3 Supported · 3 Own method · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Not supported · 1 Couldn’t confirm · 1 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“demonstrated that mutations in any of the three DNA-binding sites decreases promoter activity significantly in transient transfection studies (77)(78)(79).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [77] source
- Partly supportedcites [78] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Fig. 7) report that mutating the PU.1 site reduced M-CSF receptor promoter activity to 16% of wild type in transiently transfected U937 cells. The supplied passages do not establish the claimed effects of disrupting C/EBPα or AML1 sites; this paper supports the PU.1 portion of the statement. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [79] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“We have previously identified three factors required for M-CSF receptor transcription in monocytic cell lines, PU.1, C/EBP␣ (CCAAT/enhancerbinding protein alpha), and AML1”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [77] source
- Partly supportedcites [78] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results show that PU.1 binds the M-CSF receptor promoter, and the paper reports that disrupting its binding site significantly reduces promoter activity in macrophage cell lines. The Discussion says other factors may contribute but does not identify C/EBPα or AML1 as required; their inclusion is unsupported by this source. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [79] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“it synergizes with AML1B to increase the activity of the promoter an average of 90-fold (78,79).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [78] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report M-CSF receptor promoter activity and a fivefold increase with PU.1 in HeLa cells, but do not address C/EBPα paired with AML1B. Searches for AML1B, C/EBP and a 90-fold increase found no passage supporting the attributed synergy or magnitude. (LLM, conf=0.76)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [79] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The production of C/EBP␣ protein from these constructs has been demonstrated previously by Western blot analysis of extracts from transfected HepG2 cells (17).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Synergy between AML1B and C/EBP␣ requires their transactivation domains, and the region of AML1 critical for this synergy is distinct from that important for synergy with PU.1.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [17] source
In “A discrete activation element is located close to the amino terminus of C/EBP,” the authors report Western blotting of extracts from HepG2 cells transfected with C/EBP expression vectors and detection of protein from multiple variants. In “The central region of C/EBP contains a redundant set of activating elements,” they report that Western blotting showed expression of all 13 additional variants. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“a region important for synergy between AML1 and c-Myb (6)”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [6] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) identifies AML-1B regions 216–289 and 278–480 as required for optimal cooperation with c-Myb, while saying its DNA-binding domain is dispensable. This supports the importance of part of amino acids 1–317, but not that the specified 1–317 region as a whole is the region required for synergy; the paper also identifies a required segment extending beyond residue 317. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A ternary complex containing both proteins and the oligonucleotide was also observed (lane 4).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AML1 also synergizes, and interacts physically, with PU.1.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · boosted
“these data demonstrate that AML1 and PU.1 interact physically”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these data demonstrate that AML1-C/EBP and AML1-PU.1 DNA-protein ternary complexes can be detected with purified proteins.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have also established that the interaction between PU.1 and the runt domain of AML1 localizes to the DNA-binding ets domain of PU.1.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the proteins contact one another through their DNA-binding domains”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“this interaction occurs primarily through their DNA-binding domains.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“radiolabeled, in vitro-translated AML1 interacts with a GST fusion protein containing full-length PU.1.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Transfections with AML1B mutants truncated in the carboxy terminus indicate that this region is necessary for synergy with PU.1 (Fig. 5C).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we are unable to reproduce the synergy between AML1B and PU.1 in the CV-1 cell line”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although the synergy between AML1B and C/EBP␣ is observed in both HeLa and CV-1 cells”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PU.1 and AML1B exhibit twofold synergy, or two times as much activation as an additive effect.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the presence of both purified proteins, a band of lower mobility was detected (lane 4).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When a radiolabeled oligonucleotide containing only a PU.1 site was used in a similar gel shift experiment, the ternary complex was not detectable (lanes 11 to 14).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this higher complex could be supershifted by antiserum specific for PU.1 but not by normal rabbit serum (lanes 10 and 9, respectively).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the strength of the interaction with PU.1 is only 17% of that observed between PU.1 and the runt domain.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the activation domains of all three factors are required for synergistic activation”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the formation of the ternary complexes requires the presence of both DNA-binding sites.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“full length in vitro-translated PU.1 binds to a GST fusion protein containing the runt domain of AML1B (Fig. 4B, lane 4).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also observed a weak interaction between PU.1 and a GST fusion protein containing a domain (amino acids 213 to 395) within the C terminus of AML1B”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results show that AML1 and PU.1 can form a ternary complex with DNA.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“addition of ethidium bromide decreased but did not abolish the interaction between the runt domain of AML1 and PU.1.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AML1 also synergizes, and interacts physically, with PU.1.”
- Also stated in: § PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B. · plain
“PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B. · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result indicates that both DNA-binding sites are required for the formation of the ternary complex.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the region of AML1 required for synergy with PU.1 is distinct from that required for synergy with C/EBP␣.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“oligonucleotide carrying mutations in either the C/EBP binding site (lanes 5 to 8) or the AML1 binding site (lanes 9 to 12) failed to form the ternary complex.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result demonstrates the requirement for both factor binding sites in the formation of the ternary complex.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we saw no more than an additive increase in activity when PU.1 was included with AML1B and C/EBP␣”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we observed that a complex containing both the runt and bZip domains bound greater amounts of probe than either individual DNA-binding domain”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“mutation of the serines which are potentially phosphorylated by ERK decrease neither activation by AML1A nor synergy.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, deletion of the activation domain of either PU.1 or C/EBP␣ abrogates synergy with AML1B.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to the variability between experiments, there is no significant difference between the fold synergies calculated for AML1B, AML1B(1-381), and AML1B(1-317).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Synergy between AML1B and C/EBP␣ requires their transactivation domains, and the region of AML1 critical for this synergy is distinct from that important for synergy with PU.1.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Wild-type (wt) AML1A and mutant S249A/S266A synergize with PU.1 to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, AML1A truncated at amino acid 288 (corresponding to amino acid 315 of AML1B) fails to synergize with PU.1, further supporting the observation that amino acids C terminal to residue 317 are necessary for this function (Fig. 7B).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Mutation of potential phosphorylation sites in AML1 does not interfere with synergistic activation of the M-CSF receptor promoter.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, mutation of serines 249 and 266, converting those residues to alanine, has no effect on the ability of AML1A to synergize with either C/EBP␣ or PU.1, demonstrating that these potential phosphorylation sites are not required for synergistic activation by AML1.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Mutation of potential phosphorylation sites in AML1 does not interfere with synergistic activation of the M-CSF receptor promoter.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while the physical interaction between AML1B and either PU.1 or C/EBP␣ occurs between the DNA-binding domains”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, AML1 and PU.1 exhibit a relatively weak synergistic activation of the promoter.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have demonstrated that the DNA-binding domain of AML1 can form higher-order complexes with the DNA-binding domain of either C/EBP␣ or PU.1”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that the formation of these complexes is dependent on DNA-binding sites for both AML1 and the neighboring transcription factor.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and as with C/EBP␣, this property maps to the DNA-binding domain of each protein.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“The physical interaction between PU.1 and AML1 is localized to the DNA-binding domains.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“each domain interacts with a different set of polypeptides from radiolabeled HeLa cells (data not shown)”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect seen in the presence of both PU.1 and AML1B is more than additive and therefore by definition synergistic.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have shown that AML1 interacts physically with PU.1”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“mutations which delete nearly the entire N terminus of C/EBP␣ (del 11-257, previously referred to as regions 1 to 9) or both of the transactivation domains (del 70-200, previously referred to as regions 3 to 7) (17) completely abrogate synergy with AML1B (Fig. 6B).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Synergy between AML1B and C/EBP␣ requires their transactivation domains, and the region of AML1 critical for this synergy is distinct from that important for synergy with PU.1.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In addition, PU.1 transactivates the M-CSF receptor promoter”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“although C/EBP␣ has little transactivation potential alone”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this relatively weak interaction may explain the different binding abilities of AML1 and AML1B with GST-PU.1 (Fig. 4A).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This difference in DNA-binding abilities may explain, in part, the differences observed in synergistic activation.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Production of the AML1 proteins was demonstrated by nonquantitative immunoprecipitation from transiently transfected COS-7 cells (Fig. 5D).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“demonstrating that these potential phosphorylation sites are not required for synergistic activation by AML1.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Mutation of potential phosphorylation sites in AML1 does not interfere with synergistic activation of the M-CSF receptor promoter.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“other regions are also necessary to achieve the observed activation.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cooperative DNA binding may contribute to the strong synergy between AML1B and C/EBP␣.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, we can exclude the possibility that the different termini of AML1 play negative roles in the synergy with C/EBP␣.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Synergy between AML1B and C/EBP␣ requires their transactivation domains, and the region of AML1 critical for this synergy is distinct from that important for synergy with PU.1.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“indicating that cooperative DNA binding occurs between AML1 and C/EBP␣.”
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
“AML1 forms a ternary complex on DNA with C/EBP␣ and exhibits cooperative DNA binding.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“further supporting the observation that amino acids C terminal to residue 317 are necessary for this function (Fig. 7B).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Mutation of potential phosphorylation sites in AML1 does not interfere with synergistic activation of the M-CSF receptor promoter.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is clear that AML1 serves disparate functions on various promoters.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The existence of two functionally distinct domains implies that synergistic activation by AML1 is mediated by secondary proteins, or coactivators which bind specifically to one domain or the other.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“while the fusion protein formed from the (8;21) translocation, AML/ETO, behaves as an inhibitor of AML1B function with respect to the GM-CSF promoter and the TCR enhancer (15,38)”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15]
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [38] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instead, we believe there are additional mechanisms controlling synergistic activation.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“it synergizes with AML1B to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter (60).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [60] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 9
- It may state two separate claims as one. 36
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“The activation of an AML1-responsive reporter by AML1A can be increased following phosphorylation by ERK on serines 249 and 266 (corresponding to serines 276 and 293 of AML1B) (68).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Mutation of potential phosphorylation sites in AML1 does not interfere with synergistic activation of the M-CSF receptor promoter.
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [68] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (Fig. 2) identify the protein carrying the ERK-dependent sites as AML1b and state that AML1a lacks the PST region; no ERK-dependent phosphorylation shift was detected for AML1a. The Results (Fig. 3) assign the sites to AML1b serines 249 and 266 and say that its serine 276 was not a detectable ERK-dependent phosphorylation site. The reporter increase described in the Results (Fig. 8) therefore supports the effect for AML1b, not the isoform and residue mapping in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“CBP is a ubiquitous adapter protein that mediates contacts between transcription factors and the basal transcription machinery (1,26,33) and is thought to stimulate transcription both by physical contact with the RNA polymerase II complex and through intrinsic histone acetylation activity (4, 33, 52).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] source
- Partly supportedcites [33] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The discussion reports that CBP interacts with the basal transcription factor TFIIB, supporting the proposed link between transcription factors and basal machinery; the paper primarily investigates this bridging role in p300. Our copy does not establish that CBP is ubiquitous or that it stimulates transcription through contact with the RNA polymerase II complex or intrinsic histone acetylation. The indexed passages provide no page number. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In several studies, the physical interaction between transcription factors increases DNA-binding ability, providing an explanation for synergistic activation in the presence of two factors (11,18,56,58,67).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [11] source
The “DNA binding by Pip” section reports that Pip binds DNA only when PU.1 is bound nearby and proposes that their interaction enables Pip to bind. The “In conjunction with PU.1” section reports that neither factor alone activated the reporter, whereas the two together did. These passages support this paper as an example of the proposed mechanism; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [18] source
The Discussion (page not available in our copy) links cooperative DNA binding by PEBP2a and Ets-1 to synergistic activation of the TCRα enhancer. The paper also reports that PEBP2a augments Ets-1 DNA binding, supporting the proposed explanation for synergy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites [56] source
The paper’s introductory text (page not available in our copy) states that protein–protein interaction with PU.1 is required to recruit PIP to DNA. The Results report cooperative PU.1–PIP DNA binding, and the paper reports synergistic transcription when enhancer-binding factors are combined. This supports the cited paper as an example of the proposed explanation, rather than as evidence that all transcription-factor pairs behave this way. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Although AML1 is known to interact with Ets-1, which like PU.1 is a member of the ets family of transcription factors, in this situation it is not the conserved ets DNA-binding domain which makes contact with the runt domain of AML1, but rather amino acids 123 to 240 in the N terminus of Ets-1 (18).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [18] source
In the section on PEBP2a recruitment of Ets-1 (page not available), the paper reports an in vitro association between the PEBP2a Runt domain and Ets-1. Deletion experiments place the interacting region of Ets-1 between amino acids 123 and 240, supporting the claim that contact is through this region rather than the Ets DNA-binding domain. (LLM, conf=0.90)
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Transfections of HeLa cells, which contain no endogenous PU.1 and little detectable AML1, showed that while PU.1 activates the promoter 2-fold and AML1B 3.5-fold, together they synergize to increase the activity of the promoter 12-fold (Fig. 5A).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: HeLa cells lack endogenous PU.1 and have only low detectable AML1.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“purified GST-PU.1 (lane 2) and GST-runt, a fusion protein containing the runt domain of AML1 (79) (lane 3), bound to the radiolabeled oligonucleotide which contains the M-CSF receptor promoter AML1 and PU.1 sites”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here we show that, in addition to C/EBP␣, AML1B interacts with PU.1 to synergistically activate the M-CSF receptor promoter but requires different regions contained within the C terminus for each function.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both the 250 (Fig. 4A, lanes 1 and 5)-and 479 (lanes 2 and 8)-amino-acid forms (AML1 and AML1B [Fig.1]) are pulled down by GST-PU.1;however, the interaction with AML1B appears stronger.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AML1 exhibits cooperative DNA binding with C/EBP␣ but not with PU.1.”
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
“while the runt domain of AML1 binds cooperatively to DNA in the presence of the C/EBP␣ bZip domain, the ternary complex with PU.1 is formed in a noncooperative manner.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § RESULTS · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we detected more DNA associated with the higher-order complex formed in the presence of the AML1 runt domain (lanes 10 to 18) than with GST-bZip (lanes 1 to 9), providing evidence that AML1 and C/EBP␣ exhibit cooperative DNA binding.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“deletion of the PEST domain, which is important for interaction with NF-EM5 and activation of Bcell genes (58), has no effect on activation of the M-CSF receptor promoter or synergy with AML1B.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the amount of probe shifted by the higher-order complex is less than that shifted by either GST-runt (data not shown) or GST-PU.1,indicating that AML1 and PU.1 do not bind cooperatively to DNA.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, deletion of amino acids 1 to 70 or 33 to 100 abrogates synergy, indicating that amino acids 33 to 70 of the PU.1 activation domain are important for this function.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“full-length PU.1 (lanes 1 and 7) and amino acids 161 to 272 containing the ets domain of PU.1 (lanes 2 and 10), but not the activation domain of PU.1 (amino acids 1 to 161 [lanes 3 and 13]), interact specifically with the GST fusion protein containing the AML1 runt domain.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While termination of AML1B at amino acid 381 does not affect synergistic activation of the promoter, termination at amino acid 317 clearly does.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the synergy between PU.1 and AML1B is weak relative to that observed with AML1B and C/EBP␣, it is more than an additive effect.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this synergy is absent with reporter constructs bearing mutations in either the PU.1 or AML1 binding site [pM-CSF-R(mPU.1)-lucor pM-CSF-R(mAML1)luc, respectively] or a deletion of bp Ϫ86 to Ϫ37 [pM-CSF-R(DD)-luc], containing the binding sites for C/EBP, AML1, and PU.1, indicating that DNA binding is required for both factors.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: HeLa cells lack endogenous PU.1 and have only low detectable AML1.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these data demonstrate that AML1 and PU.1 interact physically and that this interaction occurs primarily through their DNA-binding domains.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in HeLa cells AML1B(1-289) and -(1-317) activate the M-CSF receptor promoter 3.5-and 3.8fold, respectively, relative to the expression vector, pCMV5, and both of these proteins are capable of synergizing with C/EBP␣ (Fig. 6A).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: HeLa cells lack endogenous PU.1 and have only low detectable AML1.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The formation of this PU.1-runtcomplex could be competed with a 200-fold molar excess of unlabeled self oligonucleotide (lane 5) or an oligonucleotide containing either a PU.1 binding site (lane 7) or an AML1 binding site (lane 8) but not with a nonspecific C/EBP-binding oligonucleotide (lane 6).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AML1B truncated at either amino acid 317 or 289 retains the ability to synergize with C/EBP␣ (represented by the fold synergy), indicating that amino acids 268 to 317 are important for this activity.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Synergy between AML1B and C/EBP␣ requires their transactivation domains, and the region of AML1 critical for this synergy is distinct from that important for synergy with PU.1.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of these experiments show that amino acids 268 to 317 of AML1B, and the transactivation domains of C/EBP␣, are critical for synergy.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Synergy between AML1B and C/EBP␣ requires their transactivation domains, and the region of AML1 critical for this synergy is distinct from that important for synergy with PU.1.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Synergy between AML1B and C/EBP␣ requires their transactivation domains, and the region of AML1 critical for this synergy is distinct from that important for synergy with PU.1.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Synergy between AML1B and C/EBP␣ requires their transactivation domains, and the region of AML1 critical for this synergy is distinct from that important for synergy with PU.1.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 250-amino-acid isoform, AML1, which effectively terminates at residue 268 of AML1B, does not synergize with C/EBP␣, nor does AML1B truncated at amino acid 268.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Synergy between AML1B and C/EBP␣ requires their transactivation domains, and the region of AML1 critical for this synergy is distinct from that important for synergy with PU.1.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These data demonstrate that AML1 synergizes with PU.1 to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter and that this activity requires DNA-binding sites for both factors and regions contained within the activation domains of AML1 and PU.1.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Wild-type AML1A and mutant S249A/S266A both synergize with C/EBP␣.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“amino acids 1 to 317, a region important for synergy between AML1 and c-Myb (6), are sufficient for synergy with C/EBP␣ but not PU.1.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while the 250-amino-acid form of AML1 contains the runt domain, there is no synergy observed with either PU.1 or C/EBP␣.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AML1 forms a tertiary complex on DNA with PU.1 but does not exhibit cooperative DNA binding.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we are able to show that TBP binds to a fusion protein containing the region of AML1B important for synergy with C/EBP␣ but not to a portion that contains the domain required for synergy with PU.1 (data not shown).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the activation of the reporter construct by the AML1B mutants indicates that they are expressed, are transported to the nucleus, and are capable of binding the promoter.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“EMSA analysis of COS cell extracts transfected with the PU.1 expression constructs demonstrated that the mutated proteins were produced in comparable amounts and are capable of binding to DNA (data not shown).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > PU.1 and AML1 synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, a function which is dependent on regions within the activation domains of PU.1 and AML1B.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, while in the case of AML1 and C/EBP␣, the physical interactions may contribute to co- operative DNA binding, this is not sufficient for the strong synergy.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“confirming that the C-terminal domains of AML1B make specific and distinct contacts, any of which may play a role in synergistic activation.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The functional variability of AML1 can be explained if it requires contacts with other factors to activate transcription and is accordingly dependent on the cell type as well as other DNA-binding sites.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Kamei et al. have coined the term “integrator,” postulating that CBP integrates diverse signals within the cell which culminate in the assembly of transcription factors and coactivators and translates them into transcriptional activation (26).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [26] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For instance, the ability for AML1 to synergize with PU.1 or C/EBP␣ or to coordinate the actions of all three transcription factors may depend on the activation or availability of coactivators and integrators.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Recent reports have revealed a complex mechanism, whereby nuclear hormone receptors are associated with both steroid receptor coactivators and with CBP, and the activation ability of the transcription factor is dependent on the efficient assembly of these complexes on the DNA (43).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We have previously shown that AML1B and C/EBP␣ synergize to activate the M-CSF receptor promoter, that both DNAbinding sites are required for this function, and that the factors interact in vitro via their DNA-binding domains (runt and bZip domains, respectively) (79).”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Synergy between AML1B and C/EBP␣ requires their transactivation domains, and the region of AML1 critical for this synergy is distinct from that important for synergy with PU.1.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [79] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A similar mechanism has been described for the DNA-binding nuclear hormone receptors.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [43] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The carboxy terminus of AML1B contains at least two domains that serve disparate functions, each of which is responsible for synergy with C/EBP␣ and PU.1.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, since these experiments were performed with the DNA-binding domains of AML1 and C/EBP␣, we cannot exclude the possibility that the native pro-teins would exhibit different properties.”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
HeLa cells lack endogenous PU.1 and have only low detectable AML1.
“Transfections of HeLa cells, which contain no endogenous PU.1 and little detectable AML1”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“(RUNX factors alone are relatively weak activators of transcription.4,5,7,8,11)”
From RUNX1 regulates corepressor interactions of PU.1 (2011) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“RUNX1 physically interacts with PU.1, CEBPA, GATA1, GATA2, PAX5, FLI1, and ETS1.4–10,13”
From RUNX1 regulates corepressor interactions of PU.1 (2011) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“RUNX1 synergistically increases transcriptional activation by ETS1, PU.1(SPI1), CCAAT/enhancer binding protein-α (CEBPA), GATA1, GATA2, and FLI1.4–10”
From RUNX1 regulates corepressor interactions of PU.1 (2011) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The transcription factor (TF) RUNX1 cooperates with lineage-specifying TFs (eg, PU.1/SPI1) to activate myeloid differentiation genes, such as macrophage and granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptors (MCSFR and GMCSFR).”
From RUNX1 regulates corepressor interactions of PU.1 (2011) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In cotransfection experiments, RUNX1, PU.1, and CEBPA play essential roles in activation of the hematopoietic differentiation genes MCSFR and GMCSFR.7,8,31”
From RUNX1 regulates corepressor interactions of PU.1 (2011) · cites this paper as [8]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Loss of this function of the RUNX1 C-terminus could contribute to the inability of RUNT to synergize with PU.1 to transactivate the MCSFR promoter,8 and the impaired differentiation and leukemogenesis associated with expression of RUNX1a (a RUNX1 isoform that lacks the RUNX1 C-terminus).38,39”
From RUNX1 regulates corepressor interactions of PU.1 (2011) · cites this paper as [8]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In keeping with this paradigm, RUNX1 alone is a relatively weak activator of transcription.4,5,7,8,11”
From RUNX1 regulates corepressor interactions of PU.1 (2011) · cites this paper as [8]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, RUNX1 potently enhances gene activation by multiple key hematopoietic lineage-specifying TFs.4–10”
From RUNX1 regulates corepressor interactions of PU.1 (2011) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“The myeloid-specific expression of the neutrophil elastase, 58 M-CSF receptor, 29,30 and myeloperoxidase 27 is mainly controlled through the concerted and synergistic action of RUNX1 with factors such as Myb, PU.1, and C/EBP, which bind closely located elements on their respective promoter regions.”
From RUNX/AML and C/EBP factors regulate CD11a integrin expression in myeloid cells through overlapping regulatory elements. (2003) · cites this paper as [29]
In the citing paper
“The role of the DNA-binding proteins is to confer tissue-specific, temporal regulation, whereas the co-activators (such as CBF-β) serve to amplify the activation by increasing transcription efficiency [32].”
From PU.1 and partners: regulation of haematopoietic stem cell fate in normal and malignant haematopoiesis (2009) · cites this paper as [32]
In the citing paper
“During monocytic commitment and differentiation, AML-1B regulates the myeloid-specific expression of M-CSF receptor in synergistic association with C/EBP-α and PU.1 by forming a ternary complex on DNA [32] (Fig. 7).”
From PU.1 and partners: regulation of haematopoietic stem cell fate in normal and malignant haematopoiesis (2009) · cites this paper as [32]
In the citing paper
“Although AML-1 and PU.1 exhibit a relatively weak synergistic activation of the promoter, but because the effect seen in the presence of both PU.1 and AML-1 is more than additive, the interaction is defined as synergistic [32].”
From PU.1 and partners: regulation of haematopoietic stem cell fate in normal and malignant haematopoiesis (2009) · cites this paper as [32]
In the citing paper
“The DNA-binding domain of PU.1 has been found to interact physically with many proteins, including myeloid regulators such as AML-1B and C/EBPα (3, 19).”
From Negative cross-talk between hematopoietic regulators: GATA proteins repress PU.1 (1999) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“AML-1B (19), C/EBPα (46), and c-Jun (20) all interact with the β3/β4 region of PU.1 and synergize with PU.1 to activate downstream myeloid genes.”
From Negative cross-talk between hematopoietic regulators: GATA proteins repress PU.1 (1999) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“RUNX1 by itself is a weak activator of transcription”
From Runx1 regulation of Pu.1 corepressor/coactivator exchange identifies specific molecular targets for leukemia differentiation therapy (2014) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“RUNX1 synergistically augments transcription activation by multiple hematopoietic lineage specifying transcription factors: PU.1, CEBPA, ETS1, GATA1, GATA2, FLI1, PAX5, SCL, and ERG”
From Runx1 regulation of Pu.1 corepressor/coactivator exchange identifies specific molecular targets for leukemia differentiation therapy (2014) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“PU.1-Ets can recruit c-Jun”
From Molecular Analysis of the Interaction between the Hematopoietic Master Transcription Factors GATA-1 and PU.1 (2006) · cites this paper as [21]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Immunoprecipitation.
“AML1 contains 250 amino acids and is identical to AML1B from amino acid 5 to 242”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > Immunoprecipitation.
“(32 to 268 of AML1B)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > RESULTS
“the activation domain of PU.1 (amino acids 1 to 161 [lanes 3 and 13])”
§ Multiple Functional Domains of AML1: PU.1 and C/EBP␣ Synergize with Different Regions of AML1 > DISCUSSION
“amino acids 1 to 163 of PU.1 (lanes 3 and 11 to 13)”
Citations
Cites
Smith, D. B., & Johnson, K. S. (1988) · Gene · doi:10.1016/0378-1119(88)90005-4 · Cited by 5,844
The Leucine Zipper: A Hypothetical Structure Common to a New Class of DNA Binding Proteins
Landschulz, W. H., Johnson, P. F., & McKnight, S. L. (1988) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.3289117 · Cited by 3,443
The Transcriptional Coactivators p300 and CBP Are Histone Acetyltransferases
Ogryzko, V. V., Schiltz, R. L., Russanova, V., Howard, B. H., & Nakatani, Y. (1996) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)82001-2 · Cited by 2,952
Kamei, Y., Xu, L., Heinzel, T., Torchia, J., Kurokawa, R., Gloss, B., Lin, S.-C., Heyman, R. A., Rose, D. W., Glass, C. K., et al. (1996) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)81118-6 · Cited by 2,150
Okuda, T., van Deursen, J., Hiebert, S. W., Grosveld, G., & Downing, J. R. (1996) · Cell · doi:10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80986-1 · Cited by 1,856
Self-citationThe CBP co-activator is a histone acetyltransferase
Bannister, A. J., & Kouzarides, T. (1996) · Nature · doi:10.1038/384641a0 · Cited by 1,828
Requirement of transcription factor PU.1 in the development of multiple hematopoietic lineages
Scott, E. W., Simon, M. C., Anastasi, J., & Singh, H. (1994) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.8079170 · Cited by 1,532
Wang, Q., Stacy, T., Binder, M., Marin-Padilla, M., Sharpe, A. H., & Speck, N. A. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.8.3444 · Cited by 1,178
Targeted disruption of the PU.1 gene results in multiple hematopoietic abnormalities
McKercher, S. R., Torbett, B. E., Anderson, K. L., Henkel, G. W., Vestal, D. J., Baribault, H., Klemsz, M., Feeney, A. J., Wu, G. E., Paige, C. J., et al. (1996) · The EMBO Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1460-2075.1996.tb00949.x · Cited by 1,130
The macrophage and B cell-specific transcription factor PU.1 is related to the ets oncogene
Klemsz, M. J., McKercher, S. R., Celada, A., Van Beveren, C., & Maki, R. A. (1990) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(90)90219-5 · Cited by 954
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Core-binding factors in haematopoiesis and leukaemia
Speck, N. A., & Gilliland, D. G. (2002) · Nature reviews. Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc840 · Cited by 575
Role of RUNX1 in hematological malignancies
Sood, R. B., Kamikubo, Y., & Liu, P. (2017) · Blood · doi:10.1182/blood-2016-10-687830 · Cited by 509
Zhang, P., Iwasaki-Arai, J., Iwasaki, H., Fenyus, M. L., Dayaram, T., Owens, B. M., Shigematsu, H., Levantini, E., Huettner, C. S., Lekstrom-Himes, J. A., et al. (2004) · Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2004.11.006 · Cited by 526
Self-citationGelmetti, V., Zhang, J., Fanelli, M., Minucci, S., Pelicci, P. G., & Lazar, M. A. (1998) · Molecular and Cellular Biology · doi:10.1128/mcb.18.12.7185 · Cited by 492
Negative cross-talk between hematopoietic regulators: GATA proteins repress PU.1
Zhang, P., Behre, G., Pan, J., Iwama, A., Wara-aswapati, N., Radomska, H. S., Auron, P. E., Tenen, D. G., & Sun, Z. (1999) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.96.15.8705 · Cited by 459
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Petrovick, M. S., Hiebert, S. W., Friedman, A. D., Hetherington, C. J., Tenen, D. G., & Zhang, D.-E.
- Affiliations
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Venue
- Molecular and Cellular Biology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1998-07
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 3915-3925
- ISSN
- 0270-7306 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5549
- PMC
- PMC108976
- OpenAlex
- W2138483214
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 90
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 4.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Molecular and Cellular Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Cancer Institute (CA/AI59589, P01CA072009, R01CA041456)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Acute Myeloid Leukemia Research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Retinoids in leukemia and cellular processes
- Keywords
- RUNX1, PU.1, C/EBPα, transcriptional synergy, cooperative DNA binding, transcription factor interaction, transactivation domain, hematopoiesis, transcriptional regulation
- MeSH terms
- Proto-Oncogene Protein Spi-1, Animals, Binding Sites, Cell Line, Chlorocebus aethiops, DNA, DNA-Binding Proteins, HeLa Cells, Humans, Nuclear Proteins, Phosphorylation, Promoter Regions, Genetic, Proto-Oncogene Proteins, Transcription Factors, Transcriptional Activation, Trans-Activators, Receptor, Macrophage Colony-Stimulating Factor, Mutagenesis, COS Cells, CCAAT-Enhancer-Binding Proteins, Core Binding Factor Alpha 2 Subunit
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
