Chromatin Dynamics during Lytic Infection with Herpes Simplex Virus 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Latent HSV-1 genomes are chromatinized with silencing marks. Since 2004, however, there has been an apparent inconsistency in the studies of the chromatinization of the HSV-1 genomes in lytically infected cells. Nuclease protection and chromatin immunoprecipitation assays suggested that the genomes were not regularly chromatinized, having only low histone occupancy. However, the chromatin modifications associated with transcribed and non-transcribed HSV-1 genes were those associated with active or repressed transcription, respectively. Moreover, the three critical HSV-1 transcriptional activators all had the capability to induce chromatin remodelling, and interacted with critical chromatin modifying enzymes. Depletion or overexpression of some, but not all, chromatin modifying proteins affected HSV-1 transcription, but often in unexpected manners. Since 2010, it has become clear that both cellular and HSV-1 chromatins are highly dynamic in infected cells. These dynamics reconcile the weak interactions between HSV-1 genomes and chromatin proteins, detected by nuclease protection and chromatin immunoprecipitation, with the proposed regulation of HSV-1 gene expression by chromatin, supported by the marks in the chromatin in the viral genomes and the abilities of the HSV-1 transcription activators to modulate chromatin. It also explains the sometimes unexpected results of interventions to modulate chromatin remodelling activities in infected 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".