MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985367658 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1105848108

Architecture of the high mobility group nucleosomal protein 2-nucleosome complex as revealed by methyl-based NMR

2011· article· en· W1985367658 on OpenAlexafffund
Hidenori Kato, Hugo van Ingen, Bing‐Rui Zhou, Hanqiao Feng, Michael Bustin, Lewis E. Kay, Yawen Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Cancer InstituteJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNucleosomeChromatinLinker DNAHigh-mobility groupHistoneChemistryChromatosomeBiophysicsCell biologyDNABiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chromatin structure and function are regulated by numerous proteins through specific binding to nucleosomes. The structural basis of many of these interactions is unknown, as in the case of the high mobility group nucleosomal (HMGN) protein family that regulates various chromatin functions, including transcription. Here, we report the architecture of the HMGN2-nucleosome complex determined by a combination of methyl-transverse relaxation optimized nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (methyl-TROSY) and mutational analysis. We found that HMGN2 binds to both the acidic patch in the H2A-H2B dimer and to nucleosomal DNA near the entry/exit point, "stapling" the histone core and the DNA. These results provide insight into how HMGNs regulate chromatin structure through interfering with the binding of linker histone H1 to the nucleosome as well as a structural basis of how phosphorylation induces dissociation of HMGNs from chromatin during mitosis. Importantly, our approach is generally applicable to the study of nucleosome-binding interactions in chromatin.

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)0.000
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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.252
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

Citations189
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207