MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985152077 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m111.316489

The Replication-independent Histone H3-H4 Chaperones HIR, ASF1, and RTT106 Co-operate to Maintain Promoter Fidelity

2011· article· en· W1985152077 on OpenAlexaff
Andréa C. Silva, Xiaomeng Xu, Hyun Soo Kim, Jeffrey Fillingham, Thomas Kislinger, Thomas A. Mennella, Michael‐Christopher Keogh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Cancer InstituteCommercializations Promotion Agency for R and D Outcomes
KeywordsReplication (statistics)Cell biologyHistone H3Chaperone (clinical)HistoneChemistryGeneticsBiologyVirologyGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

RNA polymerase II initiates from low complexity sequences so cells must reliably distinguish "real" from "cryptic" promoters and maintain fidelity to the former. Further, this must be performed under a range of conditions, including those found within inactive and highly transcribed regions. Here, we used genome-scale screening to identify those factors that regulate the use of a specific cryptic promoter and how this is influenced by the degree of transcription over the element. We show that promoter fidelity is most reliant on histone gene transactivators (Spt10, Spt21) and H3-H4 chaperones (Asf1, HIR complex) from the replication-independent deposition pathway. Mutations of Rtt106 that abrogate its interactions with H3-H4 or dsDNA permit extensive cryptic transcription comparable with replication-independent deposition factor deletions. We propose that nucleosome shielding is the primary means to maintain promoter fidelity, and histone replacement is most efficiently mediated in yeast cells by a HIR/Asf1/H3-H4/Rtt106 pathway.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations61
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207