Transcriptional Feedback Oscillators: Maybe, Maybe Not...
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The molecular mechanism of circadian rhythmicity is usually modeled by a transcription/translation feedback oscillator in which clock proteins negatively feed back on their own transcription to produce rhythmic levels of clock protein mRNAs, which in turn cause the production of rhythmic levels of clock proteins. This mechanism has been applied to all model organisms for which molecular data are available. This review summarizes the increasing number of anomalous observations that do not fit the standard molecular mechanism for the model organisms Acetabularia, Synechococcus, Drosophila, Neurospora, and mouse. The anomalies fall into 2 classes: observations of rhythmicity in the organism when transcription of clock genes is held constant, and rhythmicity in the organism when clock gene function is missing in knockout mutants. It is concluded that the weight of anomalies is now so large that the standard transcription/translation mechanism is no longer an adequate model for circadian oscillators. Rhythmic transcription may have other functions in the circadian system, such as participating in input and output pathways and providing robustness to the oscillations. It may be most useful to think in terms of a circadian system that uses a noncircadian oscillator consisting of metabolic feedback loops, which acquires its circadian properties from additional regulatory molecules such as the products of canonical clock genes.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it