Contribution of CAF-I to Anaphase-Promoting-Complex-Mediated Mitotic Chromatin Assembly in <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The anaphase-promoting complex (APC) is required for mitotic progression and genomic stability. Recently, we demonstrated that the APC is also required for mitotic chromatin assembly and longevity. Here, we investigated the role the APC plays in chromatin assembly. We show that apc5(CA) mutations genetically interact with the CAF-I genes as well as ASF1, HIR1, and HIR2. When present in multiple copies, the individual CAF-I genes, CAC1, CAC2, and MSI1, suppress apc5(CA) phenotypes in a CAF-1- and Asf1p-independent manner. CAF-I and the APC functionally overlap, as cac1delta cac2delta msi1delta (caf1delta) cells expressing apc5(CA) exhibit a phenotype more severe than that of apc5(CA) or caf1delta. The Ts- phenotypes observed in apc5(CA) and apc5(CA) caf mutants may be rooted in compromised histone metabolism, as coexpression of histones H3 and H4 suppressed the Ts- defects. Synthetic genetic interactions were also observed in apc5(CA) asf1delta cells. Furthermore, increased expression of genes encoding Asf1p, Hir1p, and Hir2p suppressed the apc5(CA) Ts- defect in a CAF-I-dependent manner. Together, these results suggest the existence of a complex molecular mechanism controlling APC-dependent chromatin assembly. Our data suggest the APC functions with the individual CAF-I subunits, Asf1p, and the Hir1p and Hir2p proteins. However, Asf1p and an intact CAF-I complex are dispensable for CAF-I subunit suppression, whereas CAF-I is necessary for ASF1, HIR1, and HIR2 suppression of apc5(CA) phenotypes. We discuss the implications of our observations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".