MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403445836 · doi:10.1101/gad.352108.124

Notch induces transcription by stimulating release of paused RNA polymerase II

2024· article· en· W4403445836 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Julia M. Rogers, Claudia A. Mimoso, Benjamín Martín, Alexandre Martin, Jon C. Aster, Karen Adelman, Stephen C. Blacklow

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes & Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRNA Research and Splicing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLeukemia and Lymphoma SocietyNational Cancer InstituteNational Science FoundationNational Institutes of HealthHarvard University
KeywordsChromatinBiologyNotch signaling pathwayRNA polymerase IICell biologyTranscription (linguistics)Transcription factoriesChromatin remodelingEffectorTranscription factorGene expressionGeneticsGeneSignal transductionTranscriptional regulationPromoter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Notch proteins undergo ligand-induced proteolysis to release a nuclear effector that influences a wide range of cellular processes by regulating transcription. Despite years of study, however, how Notch induces the transcription of its target genes remains unclear. Here, we comprehensively examine the response to human Notch1 across a time course of activation using high-resolution genomic assays of chromatin accessibility and nascent RNA production. Our data reveal that Notch induces target gene transcription primarily by releasing paused RNA polymerase II (RNAPII). Moreover, in contrast to prevailing models suggesting that Notch acts by promoting chromatin accessibility, we found that open chromatin was established at Notch-responsive regulatory elements prior to Notch signal induction through SWI/SNF-mediated remodeling. Together, these studies show that the nuclear response to Notch signaling is dictated by the pre-existing chromatin state and RNAPII distribution at the time of signal 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 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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenes & DevelopmentSame topicRNA Research and SplicingFrench-language works237,207