Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lengths of the DNA molecules of eukaryotic genomes are much greater than the dimensions of the metaphase chromosomes in which they are contained during mitosis. From this observation it has been generally assumed that the linear packing ratio of DNA is an adequate measure of the degree of DNA compaction. This review summarizes the evidence suggesting that the local concentration of DNA is more appropriate than the linear packing ratio for the study of chromatin condensation. The DNA concentrations corresponding to most of the models proposed for the 30-40 nm chromatin fiber are not high enough for the construction of metaphase chromosomes. The interdigitated solenoid model has a higher density because of the stacking of nucleosomes in secondary helices and, after further folding into chromatids, it yields a final concentration of DNA that approaches the experimental value found for condensed chromosomes. Since recent results have shown that metaphase chromosomes contain high concentrations of the chromatin packing ions Mg2+ and Ca2+, it is discussed that dynamic rather than rigid models are required to explain the condensation of the extended fibers observed in the absence of these cations. Finally, considering the different lines of evidence demonstrating the stacking of nucleosomes in different chromatin complexes, it is suggested that the face-to-face interactions between nucleosomes may be the driving force for the formation of higher order structures with a high local concentration of DNA.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".