Transcriptional regulation and chromatin architecture maintenance are decoupled functions at the <i>Sox2</i> locus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How distal regulatory elements control gene transcription and chromatin topology is not clearly defined, yet these processes are closely linked in lineage specification during development. Through allele-specific genome editing and chromatin interaction analyses of the Sox2 locus in mouse embryonic stem cells, we found a striking disconnection between transcriptional control and chromatin architecture. We traced nearly all Sox2 transcriptional activation to a small number of key transcription factor binding sites, whose deletions have no effect on promoter–enhancer interaction frequencies or topological domain organization. Local chromatin architecture maintenance, including at the topologically associating domain (TAD) boundary downstream from the Sox2 enhancer, is widely distributed over multiple transcription factor-bound regions and maintained in a CTCF-independent manner. Furthermore, partial disruption of promoter–enhancer interactions by ectopic chromatin loop formation has no effect on Sox2 transcription. These findings indicate that many transcription factors are involved in modulating chromatin architecture independently of CTCF.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".