Epigenetics regulate centromere formation and kinetochore function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The eukaryote centromere was initially defined cytologically as the primary constriction on vertebrate chromosomes and functionally as a chromosomal feature with a relatively low recombination frequency. Structurally, the centromere is the foundation for sister chromatid cohesion and kinetochore formation. Together these provide the basis for interaction between chromosomes and the mitotic spindle, allowing the efficient segregation of sister chromatids during cell division. Although centromeric (CEN) DNA is highly variable between species, in all cases the functional centromere forms in a chromatin domain defined by the substitution of histone H3 with the centromere specific H3 variant centromere protein A (CENP-A), also known as CENH3. Kinetochore formation and function are dependent on a variety of regional epigenetic modifications that appear to result in a loop chromatin conformation providing exterior CENH3 domains for kinetochore construction, and interior heterochromatin domains essential for sister chromatid cohesion. In addition pericentric heterochromatin provides a structural element required for spindle assembly checkpoint function. Advances in our understanding of CENH3 biology have resulted in a model where kinetochore location is specified by the epigenetic mark left after dilution of CENH3 to daughter DNA strands during S phase. This results in a self-renewing and self-reinforcing epigenetic state favorable to reliably mark centromere location, as well as to provide the optimal chromatin configuration for kinetochore formation 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".