MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308340884 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abo7247

The HUSH complex controls brain architecture and protocadherin fidelity

2022· article· en· W4308340884 on OpenAlexaff
Astrid Hagelkrüys, Marion Horrer, Jasmin Taubenschmid, Anoop Kavirayani, Maria Novatchkova, Michael Orthofer, Tsung‐Pin Pai, Domagoj Cikes, Sergei Zhuk, Meritxell Balmaña, Christopher Esk, Rubina Koglgruber, Paul Moeseneder, Jelena Lazović, Lydia M. Zopf, Shane J. F. Cronin, Ulrich Elling, Juergen A. Knoblich, Josef Penninger

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEpigenetics and DNA Methylation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtocadherinGene silencingPhosphoproteinBiologyNeuroscienceEpigeneticsCell biologyGeneGeneticsPhosphorylationCadherinCell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The HUSH (human silencing hub) complex contains the H3K9me3 binding protein M-phase phosphoprotein 8 (MPP8) and recruits the histone methyltransferase SETDB1 as well as Microrchidia CW-type zinc finger protein 2 (MORC2). Functional and mechanistic studies of the HUSH complex have hitherto been centered around SETDB1 while the in vivo functions of MPP8 and MORC2 remain elusive. Here, we show that genetic inactivation of Mphosph8 or Morc2a in the nervous system of mice leads to increased brain size, altered brain architecture, and behavioral changes. Mechanistically, in both mouse brains and human cerebral organoids, MPP8 and MORC2 suppress the repetitive-like protocadherin gene cluster in an H3K9me3-dependent manner. Our data identify MPP8 and MORC2, previously linked to silencing of repetitive elements via the HUSH complex, as key epigenetic regulators of protocadherin expression in the nervous system and thereby brain development and neuronal individuality in mice and humans.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations38
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicEpigenetics and DNA MethylationFrench-language works237,207