Co-dependent recruitment of Ino80p and Snf2p is required for yeast <i>CUP1</i> activation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In yeast, Ace1p-dependent induction of CUP1 is responsible for protecting cells from copper toxicity. Although the mechanism of yeast CUP1 induction has been studied intensively, it is still uncertain which chromatin remodelers are involved in CUP1 transcriptional activation. Here, we show that yeast cells are inviable in the presence of copper when either chromatin remodeler, Ino80p or Snf2p, is not present. This inviability is due to the lack of CUP1 expression in ino80Δ and snf2Δ cells. Subsequently, we observe that both Ino80p and Snf2p are present at the promoter and they are responsible for recruiting chromatin remodeling activity to the CUP1 promoter under induced conditions. These results suggest that they directly participate in CUP1 transcriptional activation. Furthermore, the codependent recruitment of both INO80 and SWI/SNF depends on the presence of the transcriptional activator, Ace1p. We also demonstrate that both remodelers are required to recruit RNA polymerase II and targeted histone acetylation, indicating that remodelers are recruited to the CUP1 promoter before RNA polymerase II and histone acetylases. These observations provide evidence for the mechanism of CUP1 induction. As such, we propose a model that describes novel insight into the order of events in CUP1 activation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".