MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281567315 · doi:10.3390/cells11111729

Large-Scale Analysis of X Inactivation Variations between Primed and Naïve Human Embryonic Stem Cells

2022· article· en· W4281567315 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roni Sarel-Gallily, Nissim Benvenisty

Bibliographic record

VenueCells · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAzrieli FoundationIsrael Science FoundationRosetrees Trust
KeywordsXISTX-inactivationX chromosomeDosage compensationEmbryonic stem cellBiologyChromosomeMolecular biologyGeneticsGeneCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

X chromosome inactivation is a mammalian dosage compensation mechanism, where one of two X chromosomes is randomly inactivated in female cells. Previous studies have suggested that primed human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) maintain an eroded state of the X chromosome and do not express XIST, while in naïve transition, both XIST and the eroded X chromosome are reactivated. However, the pattern of chromosome X reactivation in naïve hESCs remains mainly unknown. In this study, we examine the variations in the status of X chromosome between primed and naïve hESCs by analyzing RNA sequencing samples from different studies. We show that most samples of naïve hESCs indeed reactivate XIST and there is an increase in gene expression levels on chromosome X. However, most of the naïve samples do not fully activate chromosome X in a uniform manner and present a distinct eroded pattern, probably as a result of XIST reactivation and initiation of re-inactivation of chromosome X. This large-scale analysis provides a higher-resolution description of the changes occurring in chromosome X during primed-to-naïve transition and emphasizes the importance of taking these variations into consideration when studying X inactivation in embryonic development.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCellsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207