Transcriptional enhancers: from prediction to functional assessment on a genome-wide scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
-regulatory sequences located distally to target genes. These sequences consolidate developmental and environmental cues to coordinate gene expression in a tissue-specific manner. Enhancer function and tissue specificity depend on the expressed set of transcription factors, which recognize binding sites and recruit cofactors that regulate local chromatin organization and gene transcription. Unlike other genomic elements, enhancers are challenging to identify because they function independently of orientation, are often distant from their promoters, have poorly defined boundaries, and display no reading frame. In addition, there are no defined genetic or epigenetic features that are unambiguously associated with enhancer activity. Over recent years there have been developments in both empirical assays and computational methods for enhancer prediction. We review genome-wide tools, CRISPR advancements, and high-throughput screening approaches that have improved our ability to both observe and manipulate enhancers in vitro at the level of primary genetic sequences, chromatin states, and spatial interactions. We also highlight contemporary animal models and their importance to enhancer validation. Together, these experimental systems and techniques complement one another and broaden our understanding of enhancer function in development, evolution, and disease.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
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".