MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977855861 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003760

Apoptotic Lymphocytes of H. sapiens Lose Nucleosomes in GC-Rich Promoters

2014· article· en· W1977855861 on OpenAlexaff
Sergey Hosid, Ilya Ioshikhes

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Interference and Gene Delivery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleosomePromoterMolecular biologyBiologyMicrococcal nucleaseDNAgenomic DNAHomo sapiensGeneticsDNA sequencingHistoneGC-contentGenomeGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyzed two sets of human CD4+ nucleosomal DNA directly sequenced by Illumina (Solexa) high throughput sequencing method. The first set has ∼40 M sequences and was produced from the normal CD4+ T lymphocytes by micrococcal nuclease. The second set has ∼44 M sequences and was obtained from peripheral blood lymphocytes by apoptotic nucleases. The different nucleosome sets showed similar dinucleotide positioning AA/TT, GG/CC, and RR/YY (R is purine, Y--pyrimidine) patterns with periods of 10-10.4 bp. Peaks of GG/CC and AA/TT patterns were shifted by 5 bp from each other. Two types of promoters in H. sapiens: AT and GC-rich were identified. AT-rich promoters in apoptotic cell had +1 nucleosome shifts 50-60 bp downstream from those in normal lymphocytes. GC-rich promoters in apoptotic cells lost 80% of nucleosomes around transcription start sites as well as in total DNA. Nucleosome positioning was predicted by combination of {AA, TT}, {GG, CC}, {WW, SS} and {RR, YY} patterns. In our study we found that the combinations of {AA, TT} and {GG, CC} provide the best results and successfully mapped 33% of nucleosomes 147 bp long with precision ±15 bp (only 31/147 or 21% is expected).

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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicRNA Interference and Gene DeliveryFrench-language works237,207