MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060740961 · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2012.04.031

The PHD and Chromo Domains Regulate the ATPase Activity of the Human Chromatin Remodeler CHD4

2012· article· en· W2060740961 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Aleksandra A. Watson, P. Mahajan, Haydyn D. T. Mertens, Michael J. Deery, Wenchao Zhang, Peter K. Pham, Xiuxia Du, Till Bartke, Wei Zhang, Christian Edlich, G. Berridge, Yun Chen, N. Burgess-Brown, Tony Kouzarides, Nicola Wiechens, Tom Owen‐Hughes, Dmitri I. Svergun, O. Gileadi, Ernest D. Laue

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Molecular Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchWellcome Trust
KeywordsNucleosomeChromatin remodelingCell biologyChromatinChemistryHistoneAAA proteinsChromatin structure remodeling (RSC) complexBiologyATPaseBiochemistryDNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The NuRD (nucleosome remodeling and deacetylase) complex serves as a crucial epigenetic regulator of cell differentiation, proliferation, and hematopoietic development by coupling the deacetylation and demethylation of histones, nucleosome mobilization, and the recruitment of transcription factors. The core nucleosome remodeling function of the mammalian NuRD complex is executed by the helicase-domain-containing ATPase CHD4 (Mi-2β) subunit, which also contains N-terminal plant homeodomain (PHD) and chromo domains. The mode of regulation of chromatin remodeling by CHD4 is not well understood, nor is the role of its PHD and chromo domains. Here, we use small-angle X-ray scattering, nucleosome binding ATPase and remodeling assays, limited proteolysis, cross-linking, and tandem mass spectrometry to propose a three-dimensional structural model describing the overall shape and domain interactions of CHD4 and discuss the relevance of these for regulating the remodeling of chromatin by the NuRD complex.

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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations78
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Molecular BiologySame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207