RNA polymerases as moving barriers to condensin loop extrusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To separate replicated sister chromatids during mitosis, eukaryotes and prokaryotes have structural maintenance of chromosome (SMC) condensin complexes that were recently shown to organize chromosomes by a process known as DNA loop extrusion. In rapidly dividing bacterial cells, the process of separating sister chromatids occurs concomitantly with ongoing transcription. How transcription interferes with the condensin loop extrusion process is largely unexplored, but recent experiments show that sites of high transcription may directionally affect condensin loop extrusion. We quantitatively investigate different mechanisms of interaction between condensin and elongating RNA polymerases (RNAP) and find that RNAPs are likely steric barriers that can push and interact with condensins. Supported by new Hi-C and ChIP-seq data for cells after transcription inhibition and RNAP degradation, we argue that translocating condensins must bypass transcribing RNAPs within ~2 seconds of an encounter at rRNA genes and within ~10 seconds at protein coding genes. Thus, while individual RNAPs have little effect on the progress of loop extrusion, long, highly transcribed operons can significantly impede the extrusion process. Our data and quantitative models further suggest that bacterial condensin loop extrusion occurs by two independent, uncoupled motor activities; the motors translocate on DNA in opposing directions and function together to enlarge chromosomal loops, each independently bypassing steric barriers in their path. Our study provides a quantitative link between transcription and 3D genome organization and proposes a mechanism of interactions between SMC complexes and elongating transcription machinery relevant from bacteria to higher eukaryotes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".