A dynamic bias in chromatin protein deposition at G-quadruplex sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous studies indicate that genomic loci harboring G-quadruplexes (G4s)—stacked structures that can form in single-stranded DNA—can be linked to epigenetic instability. However, the role of chromatin redistribution and the genome-wide nature of this process need further investigation. Here, we provide experimental evidence that connects G4s to alterations in the deposition of chromatin proteins. We have used metabolic labelling and immunoprecipitation of new and parental proteins in hRPE-1 cells to investigate global chromatin deposition dynamics. We identify a reciprocal, local bias in chromatin protein deposition at G4 sites favoring the association of parental proteins with the G4 and new proteins with the C4 DNA strand. The deposition bias at G4 sites does not depend on replication directionality and is strengthened by G4 stabilization. Slowing down replication forks upon hydroxyurea treatment reverses the bias, supposedly affected by decoupling between helicase and polymerase. Interestingly, upon combined G4 stabilization and slowing of the replication forks, new proteins exhibit a redistribution pattern similar to G4 stabilization alone, while parental protein redistribution more resembles one after hydroxyurea treatment, hinting at mechanistic differences between parental and new histone distribution. We also report that the genomic distribution of putative quadruplexes is not random and depends on loop size, where G4s with shorter loops have a preference for the DNA strand replicated by leading and G4s with longer loops by lagging strand replication. These findings provide insight into the mechanisms behind G4 occurrence and its role in epigenetic instability and help to improve our understanding of the factors influencing biases in global chromatin protein redeposition.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".