MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393144993 · doi:10.1042/bst20231022

A dynamic role for transcription factors in restoring transcription through mitosis

2024· review· en· W4393144993 on OpenAlexafffund
Marek A. Budzyński, Alexander Wong, Armin Faghihi, Sheila S. Teves

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemical Society Transactions · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanada Research ChairsStem Cell Network
KeywordsTranscription (linguistics)Cell biologyTranscription factorMitosisBiologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitosis involves intricate steps, such as DNA condensation, nuclear membrane disassembly, and phosphorylation cascades that temporarily halt gene transcription. Despite this disruption, daughter cells remarkably retain the parent cell's gene expression pattern, allowing for efficient transcriptional memory after division. Early studies in mammalian cells suggested that transcription factors (TFs) mark genes for swift reactivation, a phenomenon termed 'mitotic bookmarking', but conflicting data emerged regarding TF presence on mitotic chromosomes. Recent advancements in live-cell imaging and fixation-free genomics challenge the conventional belief in universal formaldehyde fixation, revealing dynamic TF interactions during mitosis. Here, we review recent studies that provide examples of at least four modes of TF-DNA interaction during mitosis and the molecular mechanisms that govern these interactions. Additionally, we explore the impact of these interactions on transcription initiation post-mitosis. Taken together, these recent studies call for a paradigm shift toward a dynamic model of TF behavior during mitosis, underscoring the need for incorporating dynamics in mechanistic models for re-establishing transcription post-mitosis.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemical Society TransactionsSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207