MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156487098 · doi:10.1534/genetics.167.1.411

The Epigenetic Stability of the Locus Control Region-Deficient IgH Locus in Mouse Hybridoma Cells Is a Clonally Varying, Heritable Feature

2004· article· en· W2156487098 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Ronai, Maribel Berrú, Marc J. Shulman

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLocus (genetics)GeneticsLocus control regionEnhancerGeneEpigeneticsImmunoglobulin heavy chainGene silencingGene expressionMolecular biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cis-acting elements such as enhancers and locus control regions (LCRs) prevent silencing of gene expression. We have shown previously that targeted deletion of an LCR in the immunoglobulin heavy-chain (IgH) locus creates conditions in which the immunoglobulin micro heavy chain gene can exist in either of two epigenetically inherited states, one in which micro expression is positive and one in which micro expression is negative, and that the positive and negative states are maintained by a cis-acting mechanism. As described here, the stability of these states, i.e., the propensity of a cell to switch from one state to the other, varied among subclones and was an inherited, clonal feature. A similar variation in stability was seen for IgH loci that both lacked and retained the matrix attachment regions associated with the LCR. Our analysis of cell hybrids formed by fusing cells in which the micro expression had different stabilities indicated that stability was also determined by a cis-acting feature of the IgH locus. Our results thus show that a single-copy gene in the same chromosomal location and in the presence of the same transcription factors can exist in many different states of expression.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207