MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996877898 · doi:10.1111/tpj.14666

SWI3B and HDA6 interact and are required for transposon silencing in <i>Arabidopsis</i>

2019· article· en· W2996877898 on OpenAlexaff
Jie Yang, Lianyu Yuan, Ming‐Ren Yen, Rujun Ji, Tao Peng, Dachuan Gu, Songguang Yang, Yuhai Cui, Pao‐Yang Chen, Keqiang Wu, Xuncheng Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Molecular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaWestern University
FundersYouth Innovation Promotion AssociationChinese Academy of SciencesYouth Innovation Promotion Association of the Chinese Academy of SciencesAcademia SinicaMinistry of Science and Technology, TaiwanNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNucleosomeChromatinBiologyHistoneHistone H3Histone methylationChromatin remodelingGeneticsHistone H2AHistone codeEpigenomicsCell biologyDNA methylationDNAGene expressionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the interplay of covalent histone acetylation/deacetylation and ATP-dependent chromatin remodelling is crucial for the regulation of chromatin structure and gene expression in eukaryotes, the underlying molecular mechanism in plants remains largely unclear. Here we show a direct interaction between Arabidopsis SWI3B, an essential subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin-remodelling complex, and the RPD3/HDA1-type histone deacetylase HDA6 both in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, SWI3B and HDA6 co-repress the transcription of a subset of transposons. Both SWI3B and HDA6 maintain transposon silencing by decreasing histone H3 lysine 9 acetylation, but increasing histone H3 lysine 9 di-methylation, DNA methylation and nucleosome occupancy. Our findings reveal that SWI3B and HDA6 may act in the same co-repressor complex to maintain transposon silencing in Arabidopsis.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations48
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant JournalSame topicPlant Molecular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207