Classification of topological domains based on gene expression and regulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tissue-specific gene expression is thought to be one of the major forces shaping mammalian gene order. A recent study that used whole-genome chromosome conformation assays has shown that the mammalian genome is divided into specific topological domains that are shared between different tissues and organisms. Here, we wanted to assess whether gene expression and regulation are involved in shaping these domains and can be used to classify them. We analyzed gene expression and regulation levels in these domains by using RNA-seq and enhancer-associated ChIP-seq datasets for 17 different mouse tissues. We found 162 domains that are active (high gene expression and regulation) in all 17 tissues. These domains are significantly shorter, contain less repeats, and have more housekeeping genes. In contrast, we found 29 domains that are inactive (low gene expression and regulation) in all analyzed tissues and are significantly longer, have more repeats, and gene deserts. Tissue-specific active domains showed some correlation with tissue-type and gene ontology. Domain temporal gene regulation and expression differences also displayed some gene ontology terms fitting their temporal function. Combined, our results provide a catalog of shared and tissue-specific topological domains and suggest that gene expression and regulation could have a role in shaping them.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".