MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chromatin techniques for plant cells

2004· article· en· W2096965511 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Bowler, Giovanna Benvenuto, Pierre Laflamme, Diana Molino, Aline V. Probst, Muhammad Tariq, Jerzy Paszkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersEuropean Commission
KeywordsChromatinEpigeneticsBiologyNucleosomeHistoneChIA-PETChromatin remodelingComputational biologyHistone codeGeneticsDNA methylationHistone-modifying enzymesEpigenomicsRegulation of gene expressionCell biologyGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large number of recent studies have demonstrated that many important aspects of plant development are regulated by heritable changes in gene expression that do not involve changes in DNA sequence. Rather, these regulatory mechanisms involve modifications of chromatin structure that affect the accessibility of target genes to regulatory factors that can control their expression. The central component of chromatin is the nucleosome, containing the highly conserved histone proteins that are known to be subject to a wide range of post-translational modifications, which act as recognition codes for the binding of chromatin-associated factors. In addition to these histone modifications, DNA methylation can also have a dramatic influence on gene expression. To accommodate the burgeoning interest of the plant science community in the epigenetic control of plant development, a series of methods used routinely in our laboratories have been compiled that can facilitate the characterization of putative chromatin-binding factors at the biochemical, molecular and cellular levels.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.029

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations418
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207