Chromatin accessibility in the Drosophila embryo is determined by transcription factor pioneering and enhancer activation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromatin accessibility is integral to the process by which transcription factors (TFs) read out cis-regulatory DNA sequences, but it is difficult to differentiate between TFs that drive accessibility and those that do not. Deep learning models that learn complex sequence rules provide an unprecedented opportunity to dissect this problem. Using zygotic genome activation in Drosophila as a model, we analyzed high-resolution TF binding and chromatin accessibility data with interpretable deep learning and performed genetic validation experiments. We identify a hierarchical relationship between the pioneer TF Zelda and the TFs involved in axis patterning. Zelda consistently pioneers chromatin accessibility proportional to motif affinity, whereas patterning TFs augment chromatin accessibility in sequence contexts where they mediate enhancer activation. We conclude that chromatin accessibility occurs in two tiers: one through pioneering, which makes enhancers accessible but not necessarily active, and the second when the correct combination of TFs leads to enhancer activation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".