MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020234661 · doi:10.1002/jcb.22707

OCT3/4 regulates transcription of histone deacetylase 4 (<i>Hdac4</i>) in mouse embryonic stem cells

2010· article· en· W2020234661 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Russell C. Addis, Megana Prasad, Robert Yochem, Xiangcan Zhan, Timothy P. Sheets, Joyce Axelman, Michael J. Shamblott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cellular Biochemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsHDAC4Histone deacetylase 2HDAC1Homeobox protein NANOGSOX2Histone deacetylaseChromatin immunoprecipitationHistone deacetylase 5BiologyCell biologyEmbryonic stem cellMolecular biologyChromatinTranscription factorChemistryHistoneInduced pluripotent stem cellGeneticsGenePromoterGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OCT3/4 is a POU domain transcription factor that is critical for maintenance of pluripotency and self-renewal by embryonic stem (ES) cells and cells of the early mammalian embryo. It has been demonstrated to bind and regulate a number of genes, often in conjunction with the transcription factors SOX2 and NANOG. In an effort to further understand this regulatory network, chromatin immunoprecipitation was used to prepare a library of DNA segments specifically bound by OCT3/4 in undifferentiated mouse ES (mES) cell chromatin. One segment corresponds to a region within the first intron of the gene encoding histone deacetylase 4 (Hdac4), a Class II histone deacetylase. This region acts as a transcriptional repressor and contains at least two functional sites that are specifically bound by OCT3/4. HDAC4 is not expressed in the nuclei of OCT3/4+ mES cells and is upregulated upon differentiation. These findings demonstrate the participation of OCT3/4 in the repression of Hdac4 in ES cells.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cellular BiochemistrySame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207