Transcriptional landscape of the human cell cycle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steady-state gene expression across the cell cycle has been studied extensively. However, transcriptional gene regulation and the dynamics of histone modification at different cell-cycle stages are largely unknown. By applying a combination of global nuclear run-on sequencing (GRO-seq), RNA sequencing (RNA-seq), and histone-modification Chip sequencing (ChIP-seq), we depicted a comprehensive transcriptional landscape at the G0/G1, G1/S, and M phases of breast cancer MCF-7 cells. Importantly, GRO-seq and RNA-seq analysis identified different cell-cycle-regulated genes, suggesting a lag between transcription and steady-state expression during the cell cycle. Interestingly, we identified genes actively transcribed at early M phase that are longer in length and have low expression and are accompanied by a global increase in active histone 3 lysine 4 methylation (H3K4me2) and histone 3 lysine 27 acetylation (H3K27ac) modifications. In addition, we identified 2,440 cell-cycle-regulated enhancer RNAs (eRNAs) that are strongly associated with differential active transcription but not with stable expression levels across the cell cycle. Motif analysis of dynamic eRNAs predicted Kruppel-like factor 4 (KLF4) as a key regulator of G1/S transition, and this identification was validated experimentally. Taken together, our combined analysis characterized the transcriptional and histone-modification profile of the human cell cycle and identified dynamic transcriptional signatures across the cell cycle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".