When the Lyon(ized chromosome) roars: ongoing expression from an inactive X chromosome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A tribute to Mary Lyon was held in October 2016. Many remarked about Lyon's foresight regarding many intricacies of the X-chromosome inactivation process. One such example is that a year after her original 1961 hypothesis she proposed that genes with Y homologues should escape from X inactivation to achieve dosage compensation between males and females. Fifty-five years later we have learned many details about these escapees that we attempt to summarize in this review, with a particular focus on recent findings. We now know that escapees are not rare, particularly on the human X, and that most lack functionally equivalent Y homologues, leading to their increasingly recognized role in sexually dimorphic traits. Newer sequencing technologies have expanded profiling of primary tissues that will better enable connections to sex-biased disorders as well as provide additional insights into the X-inactivation process. Chromosome organization, nuclear location and chromatin environments distinguish escapees from other X-inactivated genes. Nevertheless, several big questions remain, including what dictates their distinct epigenetic environment, the underlying basis of species differences in escapee regulation, how different classes of escapees are distinguished, and the roles that local sequences and chromosome ultrastructure play in escapee regulation.This article is part of the themed issue 'X-chromosome inactivation: a tribute to Mary Lyon'.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".