MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400290063 · doi:10.1080/15476286.2024.2375097

TBP facilitates RNA Polymerase I transcription following mitosis

2024· article· en· W4400290063 on OpenAlexafffund
James Z.J. Kwan, Thomas F. Nguyen, Sheila S. Teves

Bibliographic record

VenueRNA Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BCHealth Research
KeywordsBiologyRNA polymerase IITranscription (linguistics)Cell biologyMitosisTranscription factor II DPolymeraseRNA polymerase II holoenzymeRNA polymerase IIIRNA polymeraseGeneticsMolecular biologyRNAGene expressionGenePromoter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The TATA-box binding protein (TBP) is the sole transcription factor common in the initiation complexes of the three major eukaryotic RNA Polymerases (Pol I, II and III). Although TBP is central to transcription by the three RNA Pols in various species, the emergence of TBP paralogs throughout evolution has expanded the complexity in transcription initiation. Furthermore, recent studies have emerged that questioned the centrality of TBP in mammalian cells, particularly in Pol II transcription, but the role of TBP and its paralogs in Pol I transcription remains to be re-evaluated. In this report, we show that in murine embryonic stem cells TBP localizes onto Pol I promoters, whereas the TBP paralog TRF2 only weakly associates to the Spacer Promoter of rDNA, suggesting that it may not be able to replace TBP for Pol I transcription. Importantly, acute TBP depletion does not fully disrupt Pol I occupancy or activity on ribosomal RNA genes, but TBP binding in mitosis leads to efficient Pol I reactivation following cell division. These findings provide a more nuanced role for TBP in Pol I transcription in murine embryonic stem cells.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRNA BiologySame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207