MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251788304 · doi:10.3410/f.736023653.793562667

Faculty Opinions recommendation of A novel histone H4 variant H4G regulates rDNA transcription in breast cancer.

2019· dataset· en· W4251788304 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sophie E. Polo

Bibliographic record

VenueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · 2019
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromatinHistoneNucleolusHistone H2ABiologyHistone H4Transcription (linguistics)Histone codeMolecular biologyGeneGeneticsCancer researchCell biologyNucleosomeNucleus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Histone variants, present in various cell types and tissues, are known to exhibit different functions. For example, histone H3.3 and H2A.Z are both involved in gene expression regulation, whereas H2A.X is a specific variant that responds to DNA double-strand breaks. In this study, we characterized H4G, a novel hominidae-specific histone H4 variant. We found that H4G is expressed in a variety of human cell lines and exhibit tumor-stage dependent overexpression in tissues from breast cancer patients. We found that H4G localized primarily to the nucleoli of the cell nucleus. This localization was controlled by the interaction of the alpha-helix 3 of the histone fold motif with a histone chaperone, nucleophosmin 1. In addition, we found that modulating H4G expression affects rRNA expression levels, protein synthesis rates and cell-cycle progression. Our data suggest that H4G expression alters nucleolar chromatin in a way that enhances rDNA transcription in breast cancer tissues.© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Nucleic Acids Research. PMID: 31219579 Funding information This work was supported by: CIHR, Canada Grant ID: MOP-130417

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.033

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFaculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical LiteratureSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207