MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2976533927 · doi:10.1101/785998

The majority of histone acetylation is a consequence of transcription

2019· preprint· en· W2976533927 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamín Martín, Julie Brind’Amour, Kristoffer N. Jensen, Anastasia Kuzmin, Zhen Cheng Liu, Matthew C. Lorincz, LeAnn J. Howe

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHistone AcetyltransferasesAcetylationChromatin immunoprecipitationSAP30Histone H2AHistoneHistone methyltransferaseHistone H1Histone codeBiologyCell biologyGeneticsGeneNucleosomeGene expressionPromoter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Histone acetylation is a ubiquitous hallmark of transcriptional activity, but whether the link is of a causal or consequential nature is still a matter of debate. In this study we resolve this question. Using both immunoblot analysis and chromatin immunoprecipitation-sequencing (ChIP-seq) in S. cerevisiae , we show that the majority of histone acetylation is dependent on transcription. Loss of histone H4 acetylation upon transcription inhibition is partially explained by depletion of histone acetyltransferases (HATs) from gene bodies, implicating transcription in HAT targeting. Despite this, HAT occupancy alone poorly predicts histone acetylation, suggesting that HAT activity is regulated at a step post-recruitment. Collectively, these data show that the majority of histone acetylation is a consequence of RNAPII promoting both the recruitment and activity of histone acetyltransferases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207