MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093706611 · doi:10.1186/1471-2199-10-18

Discriminating nucleosomes containing histone H2A.Z or H2A based on genetic and epigenetic information

2009· article· en· W2093706611 on OpenAlexafffund
Alain Gervais, Luc Gaudreau

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Molecular Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsNucleosomeBiologyGeneticsHistoneEpigeneticsEpigenomicsHistone codeChromatinHistone methylationHistone H2APromoterDNA methylationDNAComputational biologyGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Nucleosomes are nucleoproteic complexes, formed of eight histone molecules and DNA, and they are responsible for the compaction of the eukaryotic genome. Their presence on DNA influences many cellular processes, such as transcription, DNA replication, and DNA repair. The evolutionarily conserved histone variant H2A.Z alters nucleosome stability and is highly enriched at gene promoters. Its localization to specific genomic loci in human cells is presumed to depend either on the underlying DNA sequence or on a certain epigenetic modification pattern. RESULTS: We analyzed the differences in histone post-translational modifications and DNA sequences near nucleosomes that do or do not contain H2A.Z. We show that both the epigenetic context and underlying sequences can be used to classify nucleosomal regions, with highly significant accuracy, as likely to either contain H2A.Z or canonical histone H2A. Furthermore, our models accurately recapitulate the observed nucleosome occupancy near the transcriptional start sites of human promoters. CONCLUSION: We conclude that both genetic and epigenetic features are likely to participate in targeting H2A.Z to distinct chromatin loci.

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)0.000
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 score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.261
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations10
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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