MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107677744 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0909641106

Toggle involving <i>cis</i> -interfering noncoding RNAs controls variegated gene expression in yeast

2009· article· en· W2107677744 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stacie L. Bumgarner, Robin D. Dowell, Paula Grisafi, David K. Gifford, Gerald R. Fink

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsBiologyPolyadenylationGeneticsNon-coding RNAGeneChromatinRegulation of gene expressionGene expressionIntergenic regionGenome

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The identification of specific functional roles for the numerous long noncoding (nc)RNAs found in eukaryotic transcriptomes is currently a matter of intense study amid speculation that these ncRNAs have key regulatory roles. We have identified a pair of cis-interfering ncRNAs in yeast that contribute to the control of variegated gene expression at the FLO11 locus by implementing a regulatory circuit that toggles between two stable states. These capped, polyadenylated ncRNAs are transcribed across the large intergenic region upstream of the FLO11 ORF. As with mammalian long intervening (li)ncRNAs, these yeast ncRNAs (ICR1 and PWR1) are themselves regulated by transcription factors (Sfl1 and Flo8) and chromatin remodelers (Rpd3L) that are key elements in phenotypic transitions in yeast. The mechanism that we describe explains the unanticipated role of a histone deacetylase complex in activating gene expression, because Rpd3L mutants force the ncRNA circuit into a state that silences the expression of the adjacent variegating gene.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations193
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207