MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177322658 · doi:10.1186/s13072-021-00404-9

Contribution of genetic and epigenetic changes to escape from X-chromosome inactivation

2021· article· en· W3177322658 on OpenAlexafffund
Bradley P. Balaton, Carolyn J. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueEpigenetics & Chromatin · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal Abnormalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome British Columbia
KeywordsX-inactivationBiologyEpigeneticsGeneticsDNA methylationChromatinGeneHistoneX chromosomeHeterochromatinGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: X-chromosome inactivation (XCI) is the epigenetic inactivation of one of two X chromosomes in XX eutherian mammals. The inactive X chromosome is the result of multiple silencing pathways that act in concert to deposit chromatin changes, including DNA methylation and histone modifications. Yet over 15% of genes escape or variably escape from inactivation and continue to be expressed from the otherwise inactive X chromosome. To the extent that they have been studied, epigenetic marks correlate with this expression. RESULTS: Using publicly available data, we compared XCI status calls with DNA methylation, H3K4me1, H3K4me3, H3K9me3, H3K27ac, H3K27me3 and H3K36me3. At genes subject to XCI we found heterochromatic marks enriched, and euchromatic marks depleted on the inactive X when compared to the active X. Genes escaping XCI were more similar between the active and inactive X. Using sample-specific XCI status calls, we found some marks differed significantly with variable XCI status, but which marks were significant was not consistent between genes. A model trained to predict XCI status from these epigenetic marks obtained over 75% accuracy for genes escaping and over 90% for genes subject to XCI. This model made novel XCI status calls for genes without allelic differences or CpG islands required for other methods. Examining these calls across a domain of variably escaping genes, we saw XCI status vary across individual genes rather than at the domain level. Lastly, we compared XCI status calls to genetic polymorphisms, finding multiple loci associated with XCI status changes at variably escaping genes, but none individually sufficient to induce an XCI status change. CONCLUSION: The control of expression from the inactive X chromosome is multifaceted, but ultimately regulated at the individual gene level with detectable but limited impact of distant polymorphisms. On the inactive X, at silenced genes euchromatic marks are depleted while heterochromatic marks are enriched. Genes escaping inactivation show a less significant enrichment of heterochromatic marks and depletion of H3K27ac. Combining all examined marks improved XCI status prediction, particularly for genes without CpG islands or polymorphisms, as no single feature is a consistent feature of silenced or expressed genes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpigenetics & ChromatinSame topicGenetic and Clinical Aspects of Sex Determination and Chromosomal AbnormalitiesFrench-language works237,207