A standardized nomenclature for mammalian histone genes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Histones have a long history of research in a wide range of species, leaving a legacy of complex nomenclature in the literature. Community-led discussions at the EMBO Workshop on Histone Variants in 2011 resulted in agreement amongst experts on a revised systematic protein nomenclature for histones, which is based on a combination of phylogenetic classification and historical symbol usage. Human and mouse histone gene symbols previously followed a genome-centric system that was not applicable across all vertebrate species and did not reflect the systematic histone protein nomenclature. This prompted a collaboration between histone experts, the Human Genome Organization (HUGO) Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) and Mouse Genomic Nomenclature Committee (MGNC) to revise human and mouse histone gene nomenclature aiming, where possible, to follow the new protein nomenclature whilst conforming to the guidelines for vertebrate gene naming. The updated nomenclature has also been applied to orthologous histone genes in chimpanzee, rhesus macaque, dog, cat, pig, horse and cattle, and can serve as a framework for naming other vertebrate histone genes in the future.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
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".