Decreased Enhancer-Promoter Proximity Accompanying Enhancer Activation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enhancers can regulate the promoters of their target genes over very large genomic distances. It is widely assumed that mechanisms of enhancer action involve the reorganization of three-dimensional chromatin architecture, but this is poorly understood. The predominant model involves physical enhancer-promoter interaction by looping out the intervening chromatin. However, studying the enhancer-driven activation of the Sonic hedgehog gene (Shh), we have identified a change in chromosome conformation that is incompatible with this simple looping model. Using super-resolution 3D-FISH and chromosome conformation capture, we observe a decreased spatial proximity between Shh and its enhancers during the differentiation of embryonic stem cells to neural progenitors. We show that this can be recapitulated by synthetic enhancer activation, is impeded by chromatin-bound proteins located between the enhancer and the promoter, and appears to involve the catalytic activity of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase. Our data suggest that models of enhancer-promoter communication need to encompass chromatin conformations other than looping.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".