MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047509756 · doi:10.1002/bies.201900249

Polycomb Repressive Complexes in <i>Hox</i> Gene Regulation: Silencing and Beyond

2020· review· en· W3047509756 on OpenAlexafffund
Claudia Gentile, Marie Kmita

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHox geneGene silencingPolycomb-group proteinsBiologyGeneGeneticsRegulation of gene expressionCell biologyRepressorGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coordinated expression of the Hox gene family encoding transcription factors is critical for proper embryonic development and patterning. Major efforts have thus been dedicated to understanding mechanisms controlling Hox expression. In addition to the temporal and spatial sequential activation of Hox genes, proper embryonic development requires that Hox genes get differentially silenced in a cell-type specific manner as development proceeds. Factors contributing to Hox silencing include the polycomb repressive complexes (PRCs), which control gene expression through epigenetic modifications. This review focuses on PRC-dependent regulation of the Hox genes and is aimed at integrating the growing complexity of PRC functional properties in the context of Hox regulation. In particular, mechanisms underlying PRC binding dynamics as well as a series of studies that have revealed the impact of PRC on the 3D organization of the genome is discussed, which has a significant role on Hox regulation during development.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.304
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioEssaysSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207