MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963936136 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m505323200

Dynamic Changes in Histone H3 Lysine 9 Methylations

2005· article· en· W1963936136 on OpenAlexaff
Kirk J. McManus, Vincent L. Biron, Ryan Heit, D. Alan Underhill, Michael J. Hendzel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHistone H3EZH2BiologyHistone methylationHistoneEpigeneticsMitosisHistone methyltransferasePRC2Histone H2AHeterochromatinCell biologyEpigenomicsDemethylaseGeneticsChromatinDNA methylationGene expressionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Histone methylation is unique among post-translational histone modifications by virtue of its stability. It is thought to be a relatively stable and heritable epigenetic mark for gene-specific regulation. In this study, we use quantitative in situ approaches to investigate the cell cycle dynamics of methylated isoforms of histone H3 lysine 9. Contrary to the expected stability of trimethylated lysines, our results for trimethylated lysine 9 (tMeK9) of H3 demonstrate that the genomic content of this methylation undergoes significant changes as cells progress through mitosis. Unexpectedly, there is a loss of tMeK9 that appears to reflect a robust demethylase activity that is active during the period between anaphase and cytokinesis. Subsequent investigations of mitoses in tMeK9-deficient cells revealed defects in chromosome congression and segregation that are distinct from the increased cohesion at centromeres previously reported in association with the loss of tMeK9. Collectively, these results identify a mitosis-specific trimethylation of Lys9 in pericentromeric heterochromatin that functions in the faithful segregation of chromosomes.

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 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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations83
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207