Of numbers and movement – understanding transcription factor pathogenesis by advanced microscopy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Transcription factors (TFs) are life-sustaining and, therefore, the subject of intensive research. By regulating gene expression, TFs control a plethora of developmental and physiological processes, and their abnormal function commonly leads to various developmental defects and diseases in humans. Normal TF function often depends on gene dosage, which can be altered by copy-number variation or loss-of-function mutations. This explains why TF haploinsufficiency (HI) can lead to disease. Since aberrant TF numbers frequently result in pathogenic abnormalities of gene expression, quantitative analyses of TFs are a priority in the field. In vitro single-molecule methodologies have significantly aided the identification of links between TF gene dosage and transcriptional outcomes. Additionally, advances in quantitative microscopy have contributed mechanistic insights into normal and aberrant TF function. However, to understand TF biology, TF-chromatin interactions must be characterised in vivo, in a tissue-specific manner and in the context of both normal and altered TF numbers. Here, we summarise the advanced microscopy methodologies most frequently used to link TF abundance to function and dissect the molecular mechanisms underlying TF HIs. Increased application of advanced single-molecule and super-resolution microscopy modalities will improve our understanding of how TF HIs drive 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".