MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300861631 · doi:10.1038/s41592-022-01618-9

Profiling RNA at chromatin targets in situ by antibody-targeted tagmentation

2022· article· en· W4300861631 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Nadiya Khyzha, Steven Henikoff, Kami Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Methods · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA modifications and cancer
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Human Genome Research InstituteHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsChromatinBiologyRNAMolecular biologyHistoneChromatin immunoprecipitationChromatin remodelingCell biologyComputational biologyGeneticsGeneGene expressionPromoter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whereas techniques to map chromatin-bound proteins are well developed, mapping chromatin-associated RNAs remains a challenge. Here, we describe Reverse Transcribe and Tagment (RT&Tag), in which RNAs associated with a chromatin epitope are targeted by an antibody followed by a protein A-Tn5 transposome. Localized reverse transcription generates RNA/cDNA hybrids that are subsequently tagmented by Tn5 transposases for downstream sequencing. We demonstrate the utility of RT&Tag in Drosophila cells for capturing the noncoding RNA roX2 with the dosage compensation complex and maturing transcripts associated with silencing histone modifications. We also show that RT&Tag can detect N6-methyladenosine-modified mRNAs, and show that genes producing methylated transcripts are characterized by extensive promoter pausing of RNA polymerase II. The high efficiency of in situ antibody tethering and tagmentation makes RT&Tag especially suitable for rapid low-cost profiling of chromatin-associated RNAs.

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)0.001
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature MethodsSame topicRNA modifications and cancerFrench-language works237,207