MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143440955 · doi:10.1128/mcb.00389-12

Histone H3 Lysine 36 Methylation Targets the Isw1b Remodeling Complex to Chromatin

2012· article· en· W2143440955 on OpenAlexafffund
Vicki E. Maltby, Benjamín Martín, Julia M. Schulze‐Hentrich, Ian Johnson, Thomas Hentrich, Aishwariya Sharma, Michael S. Kobor, LeAnn J. Howe

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular and Cellular Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyChromatin remodelingChromatinHistone H3Histone methylationHistone methyltransferaseHistone codeHistoneCell biologyMethylationNucleosomeBromodomainEZH2EpigenomicsHistone-modifying enzymesGeneticsDNA methylationGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Histone H3 lysine 36 methylation is a ubiquitous hallmark of productive transcription elongation. Despite the prevalence of this histone posttranslational modification, however, the downstream functions triggered by this mark are not well understood. In this study, we showed that H3K36 methylation promoted the chromatin interaction of the Isw1b chromatin-remodeling complex in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Similar to H3K36 methylation, Isw1b was found at the mid- and 3' regions of transcribed genes genome wide, and its presence at active genes was dependent on H3K36 methylation and the PWWP domain of the Isw1b subunit, Ioc4. Moreover, purified Isw1b preferentially interacted with recombinant nucleosomes that were methylated at lysine 36, and this interaction also required the Ioc4 PWWP domain. While H3K36 methylation has been shown to regulate the binding of numerous factors, this is the first time that it has been shown to facilitate targeting of a chromatin-remodeling complex.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.699

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations75
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular and Cellular BiologySame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207