MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024628398 · doi:10.1139/o11-043

Setting up and maintaining differential insulators and boundaries for genomic imprinting

2011· review· en· W2024628398 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adele Murrell

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCancer Research UK
KeywordsCTCFChromatinGenomic imprintingBiologyInsulator (electricity)EpigeneticsGeneGeneticsGenomeLocus (genetics)Imprinting (psychology)Genomic organizationSomatic cellRegulation of gene expressionTranscription factorComputational biologyDNA methylationGene expressionEnhancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is becoming increasingly clear that gene expression is strongly regulated by the surrounding chromatin and nuclear environment. Gene regulatory elements can influence expression over long distances and the genome needs mechanisms whereby transcription can be contained. Our current understanding of the mechanisms whereby insulator/boundary elements organise the genome into active and silent domains is based on chromatin looping models that separate genes and regulatory elements. Imprinted genes have parent-of-origin specific chromatin conformation that seems to be maintained in somatic tissues and reprogrammed in the germline. This review focuses on the proteins found to be present at insulator/boundary sequences at imprinted genes and examines the experimental evidence at the IGF2-H19 locus for a model in which CTCF or other proteins determine primary looping scaffolds that are maintained in most cell lineages and speculates how these loops may enable dynamic secondary associations that can activate or silence genes.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207