MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095537321 · doi:10.1139/o03-040

HMGN dynamics and chromatin function

2003· review· en· W2095537321 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Frédéric Catez, Jae‐Hwan Lim, Robert Hock, Yuri V. Postnikov, Michael Bustin

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry and Cell Biology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatinNucleosomeCell biologyChromatin remodelingChIA-PETScaffold/matrix attachment regionHistone-modifying enzymesBiologyHistoneChIP-sequencingChIP-on-chipSolenoidBiophysicsGeneticsDNAPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies indicate that most nuclear proteins, including histone H1 and HMG are highly mobile and their interaction with chromatin is transient. These findings suggest that the structure of chromatin is dynamic and the protein composition at any particular chromatin site is not fixed. Here we discuss how the dynamic behavior of the nucleosome binding HMGN proteins affects the structure and function of chromatin. The high intranuclear mobility of HMGN insures adequate supply of protein throughout the nucleus and serves to target these proteins to their binding sites. Transient interactions of the proteins with nucleosomes destabilize the higher order chromatin, enhance the access to nucleosomal DNA, and impart flexibility to the chromatin fiber. While roaming the nucleus, the HMGN proteins encounter binding partners and form metastable multiprotein complexes, which modulate their chromatin interactions. Studies with HMGN proteins underscore the important role of protein dynamics in chromatin 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistry and Cell BiologySame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207