GCN5 enables HSP12 induction promoting chromatin remodeling, not histone acetylation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regulation of stress-responsive genes represent one of the best examples of gene induction, and the relevance and involvement of different regulators may change for a given gene depending on the challenging stimulus. The HSP12 gene is induced by very different stimuli; however, the molecular response to stress has been characterized in detail only for heat shock treatments. In this study, we aimed to verify whether the regulation of transcription induced by oxidative stress utilizes the same epigenetic solutions as those employed in the heat shock response. We also monitored HSP12 induction by employing spermidine, a known acetyltransferase inhibitor, and observed an oxidative stress that synergizes with spermidine treatment. Our data show that during transcriptional response to H2O2, histone acetylation and chromatin remodeling occur. However, when the relevance of Gcn5p to these processes was studied, we observed that induction of transcription is GCN5-dependent, and this does not rely on histone acetylation by Gcn5p despite its HAT activity. Chromatin remodeling accompanying gene activation is GCN5 dependent. Thus, GCN5 controls HSP12 transcription after H2O2 treatment by allowing chromatin remodeling, and it is only partially involved in HSP12 histone acetylation regardless of its HAT activity.
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".