FoxO1 and FoxA1/2 form a complex on DNA and cooperate to open chromatin at insulin-regulated genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously shown that cooperative, interdependent binding by the pioneer factors FoxO1 and FoxA1/2 is required for recruitment of RNA polymerase II and H3K27 acetylation to the promoters of insulin-regulated genes. However, the underlying mechanisms are unknown. In this study, we demonstrate that, in HepG2 cells, FoxO1 and FoxA2 form a complex on DNA that is disrupted by insulin treatment. Insulin-mediated phosphorylation of FoxO1 and FoxA2 does not impair their cooperative binding to mononucleosome particles assembled from the IGFBP1 promoter, indicating that direct disruption of complex formation by phosphorylation is not responsible for the loss of interdependent FoxO1:FoxA1/2 binding following insulin treatment. Since FoxO1 and FoxA1/2 binding is required for the establishment and maintenance of transcriptionally active chromatin at insulin-regulated genes, we hypothesized that cooperative FoxO1 and FoxA1/2 binding dictates the chromatin remodeling events required for the initial activation of these genes. In support of this idea, we demonstrate that FoxO1 and FoxA2 cooperatively open linker histone compacted chromatin templates containing the IGFBP1 promoter. Taken together, these results provide a mechanism for how interdependent FoxO1:FoxA1/2 binding is negatively impacted by insulin and provide a developmental context for cooperative gene activation by these factors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".