MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123591050 · doi:10.1093/nar/gkq1161

Extensive role of the general regulatory factors, Abf1 and Rap1, in determining genome-wide chromatin structure in budding yeast

2010· article· en· W2123591050 on OpenAlexafffund
Mythily Ganapathi, Michael J. Palumbo, Suraiya Anjum Ansari, Qiye He, Kyle Tsui, Corey Nislow, Randall H. Morse

Bibliographic record

VenueNucleic Acids Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyChromatinGeneticsGenomeBudding yeastYeastNucleosomeDNAComputational biologySaccharomyces cerevisiaeGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The packaging of eukaryotic DNA into chromatin has profound consequences for gene regulation, as well as for other DNA transactions such as recombination, replication and repair. Understanding how this packaging is determined is consequently a pressing problem in molecular genetics. DNA sequence, chromatin remodelers and transcription factors affect chromatin structure, but the scope of these influences on genome-wide nucleosome occupancy patterns remains uncertain. Here, we use high resolution tiling arrays to examine the contributions of two general regulatory factors, Abf1 and Rap1, to nucleosome occupancy in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. These factors have each been shown to bind to a few hundred promoters, but we find here that thousands of loci show localized regions of altered nucleosome occupancy within 1 h of loss of Abf1 or Rap1 binding, and that altered chromatin structure can occur via binding sites having a wide range of affinities. These results indicate that DNA-binding transcription factors affect chromatin structure, and probably dynamics, throughout the genome to a much greater extent than previously appreciated.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations125
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNucleic Acids ResearchSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207