MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556386268 · doi:10.7554/elife.21964

DNA methylation directs genomic localization of Mbd2 and Mbd3 in embryonic stem cells

2016· article· en· W2556386268 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sarah J. Hainer, Kurtis N. McCannell, Ly-Sha Ee, Lihua Julie Zhu, Oliver J. Rando, Thomas G. Fazzio

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLeukemia and Lymphoma Society
KeywordsDNA methylationEpigeneticsChromatinBiologyMethylationEpigenomics5-MethylcytosineCpG siteEpigenetics of physical exerciseGeneticsEpigenomeDNAMolecular biologyCell biologyGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cytosine methylation is an epigenetic and regulatory mark that functions in part through recruitment of chromatin remodeling complexes containing methyl-CpG binding domain (MBD) proteins. Two MBD proteins, Mbd2 and Mbd3, were previously shown to bind methylated or hydroxymethylated DNA, respectively; however, both of these findings have been disputed. Here, we investigated this controversy using experimental approaches and re-analysis of published data and find no evidence for methylation-independent functions of Mbd2 or Mbd3. We show that chromatin localization of Mbd2 and Mbd3 is highly overlapping and, unexpectedly, we find Mbd2 and Mbd3 are interdependent for chromatin association. Further investigation reveals that both proteins are required for normal levels of cytosine methylation and hydroxymethylation in murine embryonic stem cells. Furthermore, Mbd2 and Mbd3 regulate overlapping sets of genes that are also regulated by DNA methylation/hydroxymethylation factors. These findings reveal an interdependent regulatory mechanism mediated by the DNA methylation machinery and its readers.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207