MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1953121839 · doi:10.3934/biophy.2015.4.517

Chromatin epigenomic domain folding: size matters

2015· article· en· W1953121839 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIMS Biophysics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nautical Research Society
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsEpigenomicsChromatinFolding (DSP implementation)EpigeneticsComputational biologyBiologyEpigenesisGeneGeneticsGene expressionDNA methylationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In eukaryotes, chromatin is coated with epigenetic marks which induce differential gene expression profiles and eventually lead to different cellular phenotypes. One of the challenges of contemporary cell biology is to relate the wealth of epigenomic data with the observed physical properties of chromatin. In this study, we present a polymer physics framework that takes into account the sizes of epigenomic domains. We build a model of chromatin as a block copolymer made of domains with various sizes. This model produces a rich set of conformations which is well explained by finite-size scaling analysis of the coil-globule transition of epigenomic domains. Our results suggest that size-dependent folding of epigenomic domains may be a crucial physical mechanism able to provide chromatin with tissue-specific folding states, these being associated with differential gene expression.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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