Analysis of Polycomb Repressive Complexes binding dynamics during limb development reveals the prevalence of PRC2-independent PRC1 occupancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Polycomb group (PcG) proteins are key players in the regulation of tissue-specific gene expression through their known ability to epigenetically silence developmental genes. The PcG proteins form two multicomponent complexes, Polycomb Repressive Complex 1 and 2 (PRC1 and PRC2), whereby the hierarchical model of recruitment postulates that PRC2 triggers the trimethylation of Histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27me3) leading to the recruitment of PRC1. Here we report on the genome-wide binding dynamics of components from both PRC1 and PRC2 in the developing limb. We show that a large proportion of PRC-bound promoters are occupied exclusively by PRC1, suggesting a more extensive PRC1-specific activity than anticipated. We found that PRC1 (RING1B) and PRC2 (SUZ12) co-occupy the promoters of developmental genes, for which a subset become up-regulated upon the inactivation of PRC2. Strikingly, we found that RING1B occupancy is largely unaffected by the loss of PRC2, revealing a complex functional relationship between these two complexes in regulating gene expression and possibly an expansive functional interplay between canonical and non-canonical PRC1.
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".