MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000851240 · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13960-2

Mechanisms governing the pioneering and redistribution capabilities of the non-classical pioneer PU.1

2020· article· en· W3000851240 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Minderjahn, Andreas Schmidt, Andreas Fuchs, Rudolf Schill, Johanna Raithel, Magda Babina, Christian Schmidl, Claudia Gebhard, Sandra Schmidhofer, Karina Mendes, Anna Ratermann, Dagmar Glatz, Margit Nützel, Matthias Edinger, Petra Hoffmann, Rainer Spang, Gernot Längst, Axel Imhof, Michael Rehli

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsChromatinReprogrammingTranscription factorEctopic expressionChromatin remodelingBiologyCell biologyComputational biologyCell fate determinationGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Establishing gene regulatory networks during differentiation or reprogramming requires master or pioneer transcription factors (TFs) such as PU.1, a prototype master TF of hematopoietic lineage differentiation. To systematically determine molecular features that control its activity, here we analyze DNA-binding in vitro and genome-wide in vivo across different cell types with native or ectopic PU.1 expression. Although PU.1, in contrast to classical pioneer factors, is unable to access nucleosomal target sites in vitro, ectopic induction of PU.1 leads to the extensive remodeling of chromatin and redistribution of partner TFs. De novo chromatin access, stable binding, and redistribution of partner TFs both require PU.1's N-terminal acidic activation domain and its ability to recruit SWI/SNF remodeling complexes, suggesting that the latter may collect and distribute co-associated TFs in conjunction with the non-classical pioneer TF PU.1.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations141
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207