Competition between transcription and loop extrusion modulates promoter and enhancer dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY The spatiotemporal configuration of genes with distal regulatory elements, and the impact of chromatin mobility on transcription, remain unclear. Loop extrusion is an attractive model for bringing genetic elements together, but how this functionally interacts with transcription is also largely unknown. We combine live tracking of genomic loci and nascent transcripts with molecular dynamics simulations to assess the 4D arrangement of the Sox2 gene and its enhancer, in response to a battery of perturbations. We find that alterations in chromatin mobility, not promoter-enhancer distance, is more informative about transcriptional status. Active elements display more constrained mobility, consistent with confinement within specialized nuclear sites, and alterations in enhancer mobility distinguish poised from transcribing alleles. Strikingly, we find that whereas loop extrusion and transcription factor-mediated clustering contribute to promoter-enhancer proximity, they have antagonistic effects on chromatin dynamics. This provides an experimental framework for the underappreciated role of chromatin dynamics in genome regulation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".