MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405361506 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adq0987

Transcription processes compete with loop extrusion to homogenize promoter and enhancer dynamics

2024· article· en· W4405361506 on OpenAlexaff
Angeliki Platania, Cathie Erb, Mariano Barbieri, Bastien Molcrette, Erwan Grandgirard, Marit A. C. de Kort, Wim Pomp, Karen J. Meaburn, Tiegh Taylor, Virlana M. Shchuka, Silvia Kocanova, Mariia Nazarova, Guilherme Monteiro Oliveira, Jennifer A. Mitchell, Evi Soutoglou, Tineke L. Lenstra, Nacho Molina, Argyris Papantonis, Kerstin Bystricky, Tom Sexton

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Chromatin Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Human Genome Research Institute
KeywordsEnhancerCTCFChromatinBiologyGeneticsGeneTranscription (linguistics)CohesinTranscription factorRegulation of gene expressionTranscriptional regulationComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spatiotemporal configuration of genes with distal regulatory elements is believed to be crucial for transcriptional control, but full mechanistic understanding is lacking. We combine simultaneous live tracking of pairs of genomic loci and nascent transcripts with molecular dynamics simulations to assess the Sox2 gene and its enhancer. We find that both loci exhibit more constrained mobility than control sequences due to stalled cohesin at CCCTC-binding factor sites. Strikingly, enhancer mobility becomes constrained on transcriptional firing, homogenizing its dynamics with the gene promoter, suggestive of their cotranscriptional sharing of a nuclear microenvironment. Furthermore, we find transcription and loop extrusion to be antagonistic processes constraining regulatory loci. These findings indicate that modulating chromatin mobility can be an additional, underestimated means for effective gene regulation.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.323

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations35
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicGenomics and Chromatin DynamicsFrench-language works237,207