Chromatin remodeling complexes: ATP-dependent machines in action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the initial characterization of chromatin remodeling as an ATP-dependent process, many studies have given us insight into how nucleosome-remodeling complexes can affect various nuclear functions. However, the multistep DNA-histone remodeling process has not been completely elucidated. Although new studies are published on a nearly weekly basis, the nature and roles of interactions of the individual SWI/SNF- and ISWI-based remodeling complexes and DNA, core histones, and other chromatin-associated proteins are not fully understood. In addition, the potential changes associated with ATP recruitment and its subsequent hydrolysis have not been fully characterized. This review explores possible mechanisms by which chromatin-remodeling complexes are recruited to specific loci, use ATP hydrolysis to achieve actual remodeling through disruption of DNA-histone interactions, and are released from their chromatin template. We propose possible roles for ATP hydrolysis in a chromatin-release/target-scanning process that offer an alternative to or complement the often overlooked function of delivering the energy required for sliding or dislodging specific subsets of core histones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
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".