Analyses of linker histone – chromatin interactions in situThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled 27th International West Coast Chromatin and Chromosome Conference, and has undergone the Journal's usual peer review process.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies, using cytometric techniques based on fluorescence microscopy, have provided new information on how linker histones interact with chromatin in vivo or in situ. In particular, the use of green fluorescent proteins (GFPs) has enabled detailed studies of how individual H1 subtypes, and specific motifs in them, interact with chromatin in vivo. Furthermore, the development of cytochemical methods to study the interaction between linker histones and chromatin using DNA-binding fluorochromes as indirect probes for linker histone affinity in situ, in combination with highly sensitive and specific analytical methods, has provided additional information on the interactions between linker histones and chromatin in several cell systems. Such results verified that linker histones have a substantially higher affinity for chromatin in mature chicken erythrocytes than in frog erythrocytes, and they also indicated that the affinity decreased during differentiation of the frog erythrocytes. Furthermore, in cultured human fibroblasts, the linker histones showed a relatively high affinity for chromatin in interphase, whereas it showed a significantly lower affinity in highly condensed metaphase chromosomes. This method also enables the analysis of linker histone affinity for chromatin in H1-depleted fibroblasts reconstituted with purified linker histones. No consistent correlation between linker histone affinity and chromatin condensation has so far been detected.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".