Bibliographic record
Abstract
The yeast SWI/SNF ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling complex was first identified and characterized over 10 years ago (F. Winston and M. Carlson. 1992. Trends Genet. 8: 387-391.) Since then, the number of distinct ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling complexes and the variety of roles they play in nuclear processes have become dizzying (J.A. Martens and F. Winston. 2003. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 13: 136-142; A. Vacquero et al. 2003. Sci. Aging Knowledge Environ. 2003: RE4)--and that does not even include the companion suite of histone modifying enzymes, which exhibit a comparable diversity in both number of complexes and variety of functions (M.J. Carrozza et al. 2003. Trends Genet. 19: 321-329; W. Fischle et al. 2003. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 15: 172-183; M. Iizuka and M.M. Smith. 2003. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 13: 1529-1539). This vast complexity is hardly surprising, given that all nuclear processes that involve DNA--transcription, replication, repair, recombination, sister chromatid cohesion, etc.--must all occur in the context of chromatin. The SWI/SNF-related ATP-dependent remodelers are divided into a number of subfamilies, all related by the SWI2/SNF2 ATPase at their catalytic core. In nearly every species where researchers have looked for them, one or more members of each subfamily have been identified. Even the budding yeast, with its comparatively small genome, contains eight different chromatin remodelers in five different subfamilies. This review will focus on just one subfamily, the Imitation Switch (ISWI) family, which is proving to be one of the most diverse groups of chromatin remodelers in both form and function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".