MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158651132 · doi:10.1083/jcb.201012077

<i>Drosophila</i> histone locus bodies form by hierarchical recruitment of components

2011· letter· en· W2158651132 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anne White, Brandon D. Burch, Pamela Y. Gasdaska, Zbigniew Domiński, William F. Marzluff, Robert J. Duronio

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cell Biology · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBiologyGeneticsHistoneNuclear proteinCell biologyRNA interferenceDrosophila melanogasterGeneLocus (genetics)ChromatinRibonucleoproteinTranscription factorRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nuclear bodies are protein- and RNA-containing structures that participate in a wide range of processes critical to genome function. Molecular self-organization is thought to drive nuclear body formation, but whether this occurs stochastically or via an ordered, hierarchical process is not fully understood. We addressed this question using RNAi and proteomic approaches in Drosophila melanogaster to identify and characterize novel components of the histone locus body (HLB), a nuclear body involved in the expression of replication-dependent histone genes. We identified the transcription elongation factor suppressor of Ty 6 (Spt6) and a homologue of mammalian nuclear protein of the ataxia telangiectasia-mutated locus that is encoded by the homeotic gene multisex combs (mxc) as novel HLB components. By combining genetic manipulation in both cell culture and embryos with cytological observations of Mxc, Spt6, and the known HLB components, FLICE-associated huge protein, Mute, U7 small nuclear ribonucleoprotein, and MPM-2 phosphoepitope, we demonstrated sequential recruitment and hierarchical dependency for localization of factors to HLBs during development, suggesting that ordered assembly can play a role in nuclear body formation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations117
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Cell BiologySame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207