DNA of a circular minichromosome linearized by restriction enzymes or other reagents is resistant to further cleavage: an influence of chromatin topology on the accessibility of DNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accessibility of DNA in chromatin is an essential factor in regulating its activities. We studied the accessibility of the DNA in a ∼170 kb circular minichromosome to DNA-cleaving reagents using pulsed-field gel electrophoresis and fibre-fluorescence in situ hybridization on combed DNA molecules. Only one of several potential sites in the minichromosome DNA was accessible to restriction enzymes in permeabilized cells, and in growing cells only a single site at an essentially random position was cut by poisoned topoisomerase II, neocarzinostatin and γ-radiation, which have multiple potential cleavage sites; further sites were then inaccessible in the linearized minichromosomes. Sequential exposure to combinations of these reagents also resulted in cleavage at only a single site. Minichromosome DNA containing single-strand breaks created by a nicking endonuclease to relax any unconstrained superhelicity was also cut at only a single position by a restriction enzyme. Further sites became accessible after ≥95% of histones H2A, H2B and H1, and most non-histone proteins were extracted. These observations suggest that a global rearrangement of the three-dimensional packing and interactions of nucleosomes occurs when a circular minichromosome is linearized and results in its DNA becoming inaccessible to probes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".