Distinct accessory roles of<i>Arabidopsis</i>VEL proteins in Polycomb silencing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2) mediates epigenetic silencing of target genes in animals and plants. InArabidopsis, PRC2 is required for the cold-induced epigenetic silencing of theFLCfloral repressor locus to align flowering with spring. During this process, PRC2 relies on VEL accessory factors, including the constitutively expressed VRN5 and the cold-induced VIN3. The VEL proteins are physically associated with PRC2, but their individual functions remain unclear. Here, we show an intimate association between recombinant VRN5 and multiple components within a reconstituted PRC2, dependent on a compact conformation of VRN5 central domains. Key residues mediating this compact conformation are conserved among VRN5 orthologs across the plant kingdom. In contrast, VIN3 interacts with VAL1, a transcriptional repressor that binds directly toFLC. These associations differentially affect their role in H3K27me deposition: Both proteins are required for H3K27me3, but only VRN5 is necessary for H3K27me2. Although originally defined as vernalization regulators, VIN3 and VRN5 coassociate with many targets in theArabidopsisgenome that are modified with H3K27me3. Our work therefore reveals the distinct accessory roles for VEL proteins in conferring cold-induced silencing onFLC, with broad relevance for PRC2 targets generally.
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".