MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Histone Variants and Composition in the Developing Brain: Should MeCP2 Care?

2016· review· en· W2339486157 on OpenAlexaff
Valentina Zago, Cristina Pinar-CabezaDeVaca, J. Vincent, Juan Ausió

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Topics in Medicinal Chemistry · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatinHistone-modifying enzymesHistoneChromatin remodelingBiologyEpigeneticsMECP2Histone codeGeneticsNucleosomeCell biologyNeuroscienceComputational biologyDNAGenePhenotype

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Specific compositional chromatin features distinguish brain/neuronal chromatin from that of other tissues and are critical to this organ and cell type development and neuroplasticity. These features include a significant turnover of the major constitutive chromosomal proteins, including the (canonical) replication-dependent histones, the replication-independent replacement histone variants, as well as the chromatin associated transcriptional regulator MeCP2 (methyl CpG binding protein 2). Alterations of histones and MeCP2 have already been implicated in many brain disorders. Despite the relevance of histone variants to chromatin structure and function, only recently has some exciting literature started to re-emerge that directly relates them to neuron plasticity and cognition. However, the amount of information available on the functional role of these histones is still very limited. The purpose of this review is to focus attention to this important group of chromatin proteins, which, in the brain, possess overlapping structural and functional roles with the highly abundant presence of MeCP2. There is an imperative need to understand how all these proteins communicate with each other, and future research will hopefully provide us with answers.

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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Topics in Medicinal ChemistrySame topicGenetics and Neurodevelopmental DisordersFrench-language works237,207