Human Histone Interaction Networks: An Old Concept, New Trends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To elucidate the properties of human histone interactions on the large scale, we perform a comprehensive mapping of human histone interaction networks by using data from structural, chemical cross-linking and various high-throughput studies. Histone interactomes derived from different data sources show limited overlap and complement each other. It inspires us to integrate these data into the combined histone global interaction network which includes 5308 proteins and 10,330 interactions. The analysis of topological properties of the human histone interactome reveals its scale free behavior and high modularity. Our study of histone binding interfaces uncovers a remarkably high number of residues involved in interactions between histones and non-histone proteins, 80-90% of residues in histones H3 and H4 have at least one binding partner. Two types of histone binding modes are detected: interfaces conserved in most histone variants and variant specific interfaces. Finally, different types of chromatin factors recognize histones in nucleosomes via distinct binding modes, and many of these interfaces utilize acidic patches among other sites. Interaction networks are available at https://github.com/Panchenko-Lab/Human-histone-interactome.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".