MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009429290 · doi:10.4161/epi.5.7.12856

Reading chromatin

2010· review· en· W2009429290 on OpenAlexafffund
Julia M. Schulze‐Hentrich, Alice Y. Wang, Michael S. Kobor

Bibliographic record

VenueEpigenetics · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyHistone acetyltransferaseChromatinHistone codeAcetylationHistoneHistone octamerCell biologyGeneticsProtein subunitHistone methyltransferaseComputational biologyNucleosomeDNAGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chromatin-modifying complexes typically contain signature domains that either have catalytic activity or recognize and bind to specific histone modifications such as acetylation, methylation, and phosphorylation. Despite tremendous progress in this area, much remains to be learned in particular about the mechanistic functions of less well characterized signature domains. One such module is the evolutionary conserved YEATS domain, found in a variety of chromatin-modifying and transcription complexes from yeast to human. Three yeast proteins contain a YEATS domain, including Yaf9, a subunit of both the histone variant H2A.Z deposition complex SWR1-C and the histone acetyltransferase complex NuA4. The three-dimensional structure of the YEATS domain from Yaf9 was solved recently, revealing the existence of three distinct structural regions. One region is characterized by a shallow groove that might constitute a potential acetyl-lysine binding pocket, raising questions about potential protein interaction partners of the Yaf9 YEATS domain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.055

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpigeneticsSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207