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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".