EAR motif-mediated transcriptional repression in plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethylene-responsive element binding factor-associated Amphiphilic Repression (EAR) motif-mediated transcriptional repression is emerging as one of the principal mechanisms of plant gene regulation. The EAR motif, defined by the consensus sequence patterns of either LxLxL or DLNxxP, is the most predominant form of transcriptional repression motif so far identified in plants. Additionally, this active repression motif is highly conserved in transcriptional regulators known to function as negative regulators in a broad range of developmental and physiological processes across evolutionarily diverse plant species. Recent discoveries of co-repressors interacting with EAR motifs, such as TOPLESS (TPL) and AtSAP18, have begun to unravel the mechanisms of EAR motif-mediated repression. The demonstration of genetic interaction between mutants of TPL and AtHDA19, co-complex formation between TPL-related 1 (TPR1) and AtHDA19, as well as direct physical interaction between AtSAP18 and AtHDA19 support a model where EAR repressors, via recruitment of chromatin remodeling factors, facilitate epigenetic regulation of gene expression. Here, we discuss the biological significance of EAR-mediated gene regulation in the broader context of plant biology and present literature evidence in support of a model for EAR motif-mediated repression via the recruitment and action of chromatin modifiers. Additionally, we discuss the possible influences of phosphorylation and ubiquitination on the function and turnover of EAR repressors.
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 | 0.001 |
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".