UTX is an escape from X-inactivation tumor-suppressor in B cell lymphoma

Li, Xiaoxi; Zhang, Yanli; Zheng, Liting; Liu, Mingxian; Chen, Charlie Degui; Jiang, Hai

doi:10.1038/s41467-018-05084-w

Cited by 75 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is problematic because the current albedo values of the ice giants have relatively large observational uncertainties, which could even be larger than the currently accepted error bars. We note that Cassini observations of the Jovian atmosphere recently led to a significantly higher Bond Albedo of 0.50 compared to the Voyager value of 0.34 (Li et al 2018). Improved observational constraints on the present values of albedo and effective temperature are thus clearly much needed also for the ice giants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Thermal evolution of Uranus and Neptune

Scheibe

Nettelmann

Redmer

2019

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The brightness of Neptune is often found to be in accordance with an adiabatic interior, while the low luminosity of Uranus challenges this assumption. Here we apply revised equation of state data of hydrogen, helium, and water and compute the thermal evolution of Uranus and Neptune assuming an adiabatic interior. For this purpose, we have developed a new planetary model and evolution code. We investigate the influence of albedo, solar energy influx, and equations of state of H and He, and water on the cooling time. Our cooling times of about τU = 5.1 × 10 9 years for Uranus and τN = 3.7 × 10 9 years for Neptune bracket the known age of the planets of 4.56 × 10 9 years implying that neither planet's present-day luminosity can be explained by adiabatic cooling. We also find that uncertainties on input parameters such as the level of irradiation matter generally more for Uranus than for Neptune. Our results suggest that in contrast to common assumptions, neither planet is fully adiabatic in the deeper interior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Thermal evolution of Uranus and Neptune

Scheibe

Nettelmann

Redmer

2019

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, good solutions for Jupiter do require R ρ > 0, consistent with the expectation from earlier modeling efforts (e.g., Hubbard et al 1999;Fortney & Hubbard 2003;Fortney et al 2011;Nettelmann et al 2015;Mankovich et al 2016) that Jupiter required some mechanism (non-adiabatic interiors or otherwise) to speed its evolution rather than prolong it 2 . However, the new models find interiors that are closer to adiabatic (R ρ closer to zero) due to the major improvement in our understanding of the internal heat flow of Jupiter in light of results from Cassini (Li et al 2018). For Saturn, equally good solutions are found assuming purely adiabatic envelopes corresponding to essentially perfect convection, although nonzero values R ρ ≈ 0.05 typical of our Jupiter models (Figure 7) are also likely in our Saturn models (Figure 13).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…These models are built on the premise that some degree of hydrogen-helium immiscibility-and rainout of the resulting helium-rich phase-occurs in both planets, a notion supported by decades of work spanning dense matter physics (e.g., Stevenson 1975;Hubbard & Dewitt 1985;Morales et al 2009;Lorenzen et al 2009) and planetary science (e.g., Smoluchowski 1967;Stevenson & Salpeter 1977;von Zahn et al 1998;Conrath & Gautier 2000). The evolution models presented here apply recent advances in the equation of state of hydrogen (Militzer & Hubbard 2013), the phase diagram describing miscibility of hydrogen-helium mixtures (Schöttler & Redmer 2018), and the atmospheres of the gas giants (Fortney et al 2011;Li et al 2018). Sampling parameter space systematically using Markov chain Monte Carlo, we are able to arrive at solutions that naturally explain the radii and heat flow of both Jupiter and Saturn at the solar age, as well as Jupiter's observed atmospheric helium depletion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Evidence for a Dichotomy in the Interior Structures of Jupiter and Saturn from Helium Phase Separation

Mankovich

Fortney

2020

ApJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the comparative thermal evolution of Jupiter and Saturn applying recent theoretical results for helium's immiscibility in fluid metallic hydrogen. The redistribution of helium in their interiors proceeds very differently for the two planets. We confirm that based on Jupiter's atmospheric helium depletion as observed in situ by the Galileo entry probe, Jupiter's interior helium has differentiated modestly, and we present models reconciling Jupiter's helium depletion, radius, and heat flow at the solar age. Jupiter's recently revised Bond albedo implies a lower intrinsic flux for the planet, accommodating more luminosity from helium differentiation such that mildly superadiabatic interiors can satisfy all constraints. The same phase diagram applied to the less massive Saturn predicts dramatic helium differentiation to the degree that Saturn inevitably forms a helium-rich shell or core, an outcome previously proposed by Stevenson & Salpeter and others. The luminosity from Saturn's helium differentiation is sufficient to extend its cooling time to the solar age, even for adiabatic interiors. This model predicts Saturn's atmospheric helium to be depleted to Y = 0.07 ± 0.01, corresponding to a He/H 2 mixing ratio 0.036 ± 0.006. We also show that neon differentiation may have contributed to both planets' luminosity in the past. These results demonstrate that Jupiter and Saturn's thermal evolution can be explained self-consistently with a single physical model, and emphasize that nontrivial helium distributions should be considered in future models for Saturn's internal structure and dynamo.

show abstract

“…6,41,50 Urothelial carcinoma is much more prevalent in males, but has a worse prognosis in females. 6,41,50 Urothelial carcinoma is much more prevalent in males, but has a worse prognosis in females.…”

Section: Utx In Urothelial Carcinomamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A gender bias in UTX inactivation has also been reported in other cancer types. 6,41,50 Urothelial carcinoma is much more prevalent in males, but has a worse prognosis in females. This gender difference persists even after correction for environmental risk factors such as smoking or occupational exposure.…”

Section: Utx In Urothelial Carcinomamentioning

confidence: 99%

The histone demethylase UTX/KDM6A in cancer: Progress and puzzles

Schulz

Lang

Koch

et al. 2019

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lysine‐specific demethylase 6A/UTX (gene name KDM6A) acts as a component of the COMPASS complex to control gene activation. UTX demethylates H3K27me2/3 at genes and enhancers. Deleterious mutations in KDM6A are found in many cancer types, prominently urothelial carcinoma and certain T‐cell leukemias. In certain cancers, however, UTX supports oncogenic transcription factors, e.g. steroid hormone receptors in breast and prostate cancer. In fetal development, UTX regulates lineage choice and cell differentiation. Analogously, loss of UTX function in cancer may lead to metaplasia or impede differentiation. Likely because its function is contingent on its interacting transcription factors, the effects of UTX inactivation are not uniform and require detailed investigation in each cancer type. In urothelial carcinoma, in particular, the functional consequences of the frequent mutations in KDM6A and other COMPASS component genes are poorly understood. Nevertheless, UTX inactivation appears to sensitize many cancers to inhibitors of the H3K27 methyltransferase EZH2. Conversely, inhibitors of UTX enzymatic activity may be applicable in cancers with an oncogenic UTX function. Intriguingly, the fact that KDM6A is localized on the X‐chromosome, but both copies are expressed, may account for gender‐specific differences in cancer susceptibility. In conclusion, despite recent progress, many open questions need to be addressed, most importantly, the detailed mechanisms by which KDM6A inactivation promotes various cancers, but also with which proteins UTX interacts in and apart from the COMPASS complex, and to which extent its catalytic function is required for its tumor‐suppressive function.

show abstract

UTX is an escape from X-inactivation tumor-suppressor in B cell lymphoma

Cited by 75 publications

References 34 publications

Thermal evolution of Uranus and Neptune

Thermal evolution of Uranus and Neptune

Evidence for a Dichotomy in the Interior Structures of Jupiter and Saturn from Helium Phase Separation

The histone demethylase UTX/KDM6A in cancer: Progress and puzzles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About