MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972180383 · doi:10.1101/gad.328849.119

Regulation of histone methylation by automethylation of PRC2

2019· article· en· W2972180383 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xueyin Wang, Yicheng Long, Richard D. Paucek, Anne R. Gooding, Thomas Lee, Rachel M. Burdorf, Thomas R. Cech

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes & Development · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthMonash UniversityUniversity of ConnecticutYork UniversityHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsBiologyPRC2HistoneMethylationEZH2Histone methyltransferaseGeneticsHistone methylationDNA methylationCell biologyDNAGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polycomb-repressive complex 2 (PRC2) is a histone methyltransferase that is critical for regulating transcriptional repression in mammals. Its catalytic subunit, EZH2, is responsible for the trimethylation of H3K27 and also undergoes automethylation. Using mass spectrometry analysis of recombinant human PRC2, we identified three methylated lysine residues (K510, K514, and K515) on a disordered but highly conserved loop of EZH2. Methylation of these lysines increases PRC2 histone methyltransferase activity, whereas their mutation decreases activity in vitro. De novo histone methylation in an EZH2 knockout cell line is greatly impeded by mutation of the automethylation lysines. EZH2 automethylation occurs intramolecularly (in cis ) by methylation of a pseudosubstrate sequence on a flexible loop. This posttranslational modification and cis regulation of PRC2 are analogous to the activation of many protein kinases by autophosphorylation. We propose that EZH2 automethylation allows PRC2 to modulate its histone methyltransferase activity by sensing histone H3 tails, SAM concentration, and perhaps other effectors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations79
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes & DevelopmentSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207