PHC1 maintains pluripotency by organizing genome-wide chromatin interactions of the Nanog locus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polycomb group (PcG) proteins maintain cell identity by repressing gene expression during development. Surprisingly, emerging studies have recently reported that a number of PcG proteins directly activate gene expression during cell fate determination process. However, the mechanisms by which they direct gene activation in pluripotency remain poorly understood. Here, we show that Phc1, a subunit of canonical polycomb repressive complex 1 (cPRC1), can exert its function in pluripotency maintenance via a PRC1-independent activation of Nanog. Ablation of Phc1 reduces the expression of Nanog and overexpression of Nanog partially rescues impaired pluripotency caused by Phc1 depletion. We find that Phc1 interacts with Nanog and activates Nanog transcription by stabilizing the genome-wide chromatin interactions of the Nanog locus. This adds to the already known canonical function of PRC1 in pluripotency maintenance via a PRC1-dependent repression of differentiation genes. Overall, our study reveals a function of Phc1 to activate Nanog transcription through regulating chromatin architecture and proposes a paradigm for PcG proteins to maintain pluripotency.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".