Polycomb repressive complex 1 provides a molecular explanation for repeat copy number dependency in FSHD muscular dystrophy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repression of repetitive elements is crucial to preserve genome integrity and has been traditionally ascribed to constitutive heterochromatin pathways. FacioScapuloHumeral Muscular Dystrophy (FSHD), one of the most common myopathies, is characterized by a complex interplay of genetic and epigenetic events. The main FSHD form is linked to a reduced copy number of the D4Z4 macrosatellite repeat on 4q35, causing loss of silencing and aberrant expression of the D4Z4-embedded DUX4 gene leading to disease. By an unknown mechanism, D4Z4 copy-number correlates with FSHD phenotype. Here we show that the DUX4 proximal promoter (DUX4p) is sufficient to nucleate the enrichment of both constitutive and facultative heterochromatin components and to mediate a copy-number dependent gene silencing. We found that both the CpG/GC dense DNA content and the repetitive nature of DUX4p arrays are important for their repressive ability. We showed that DUX4p mediates a copy number-dependent Polycomb Repressive Complex 1 (PRC1) recruitment, which is responsible for the copy-number dependent gene repression. Overall, we directly link genetic and epigenetic defects in FSHD by proposing a novel molecular explanation for the copy number-dependency in FSHD pathogenesis, and offer insight into the molecular functions of repeats in chromatin regulation.
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".