HOX13-dependent chromatin accessibility underlies the transition towards the digit development program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hox genes encode transcription factors (TFs) that establish morphological diversity in the developing embryo. The similar DNA-binding motifs of the various HOX TFs contrast with the wide-range of HOX-dependent genetic programs. The influence of the chromatin context on HOX binding specificity remains elusive. Here, we used the developing limb as a model system to compare the binding specificity of HOXA13 and HOXD13 (HOX13 hereafter), which are required for digit formation, and HOXA11, involved in forearm/leg development. We find that upon ectopic expression in distal limb buds, HOXA11 binds sites normally HOX13-specific. Importantly, these sites are loci whose chromatin accessibility relies on HOX13. Moreover, we show that chromatin accessibility specific to the distal limb requires HOX13 function. Based on these results, we propose that HOX13 TFs pioneer the distal limb-specific chromatin accessibility landscape for the proper implementation of the distal limb developmental program.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".