A DNA base-specific sequence interposed between CRX and NRL contributes to RHODOPSIN expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gene expression emerges from DNA sequences through the interaction of transcription factors (TFs) with DNA cis-regulatory sequences. In eukaryotes, TFs bind to transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) with differential affinities, enabling cell-specific gene expression. In this view, DNA enables TF binding along a continuum ranging from low to high affinity depending on its sequence composition; however, it is not known whether evolution has entailed a further level of entanglement between DNA-protein interaction. Here we found that the composition and length (22 bp) of the DNA sequence interposed between the CRX and NRL retinal TFs in the proximal promoter of RHODOPSIN (RHO) largely controls the expression levels of RHO. Mutagenesis of CRX-NRL DNA linking sequences (here termed "DNA-linker") results in uncorrelated gene expression variation. In contrast, mutual exchange of naturally occurring divergent human and mouse Rho cis-regulatory elements conferred similar yet species-specific Rho expression levels. Two orthogonal DNA-binding proteins targeted to the DNA-linker either activate or repress the expression of Rho depending on the DNA-linker orientation relative to the CRX and NRL binding sites. These results argue that, in this instance, DNA itself contributes to CRX and NRL activities through a code based on specific base sequences of a defined length, ultimately determining optimal RHO expression levels.
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 | 0.001 |
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".