MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1685247382 · doi:10.1139/g11-076

Histone H3 methylation patterns in <i>Brassica nigra</i>, <i>Brassica juncea</i>, and <i>Brassica carinata</i> species

2012· article· en· W1685247382 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Agnieszka Brąszewska-Zalewska, A. Dziurlikowska, Jolanta Małuszyńska

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyEuchromatinHeterochromatinHistone H3HistoneMethylationChromatinGeneticsCell biologyBotanyDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Core histones are subjected to various post-translational modifications, and one of them, most intensively studied in plants, is the methylation of histone H3. In the majority of analyzed plant species, dimethylation of H3 at lysine 9 (H3K9me2) is detected in heterochromatin domains, whereas methylation of H3 at lysine 4 (H3K4me2) is detected in euchromatin domains. The distribution of H3K9me2 in the interphase nucleus seems to be correlated with genome size, chromatin organization, but also with tissue specificity. In this paper, we present the analysis of the pattern and level of histone H3 methylation for two allotetraploid and one diploid Brassica species. We have found that the pattern of H3K9me2 in interphase nuclei from root meristematic tissue is comparable within the analyzed species and includes both heterochromatin and euchromatin, but the level of modification differs not only among species but even among nuclei in the same phase of the cell cycle within one species. Moreover, the differences in the level of H3K9me2 are not directly coupled with DNA content in the nuclei and are probably tissue specific.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome→Same topicPlant Molecular Biology Research→French-language works237,207→