MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407745690 · doi:10.3390/ijms26041772

It Takes a Village of Chromatin Remodelers to Regulate rDNA Expression

2025· review· en· W4407745690 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathieu Lévesque, David J. Picketts

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicChromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsChromatinBiologyRibosome biogenesisHeterochromatinEpigeneticsGeneticsChromatin remodelingHistoneNucleosomeCell biologyRibosomal proteinRibosomeRibosomal DNADNAGeneRNA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ribosome biogenesis is one of the most fundamental and energetically demanding cellular processes. In humans, the ribosomal DNA (rDNA) repeats span a large region of DNA and comprise 200 to 600 copies of a ~43 kb unit spread over five different chromosomes. Control over ribosome biogenesis is closely tied to the regulation of the chromatin environment of this large genomic region. The proportion of rDNA loci which are active or silent is altered depending on the proliferative or metabolic state of the cell. Repeat silencing is driven by epigenetic changes culminating in a repressive heterochromatin environment. One group of proteins facilitating these epigenetic changes in response to growth or metabolic demands are ATP-dependent chromatin remodeling protein complexes that use ATP hydrolysis to reposition nucleosomes. Indeed, some chromatin remodelers are known to have indispensable roles in regulating the chromatin environment of rDNA. In this review, we highlight these proteins and their complexes and describe their mechanistic roles at rDNA. We also introduce the developmental disorders arising from the dysfunction of these proteins and discuss how the consequent dysregulation of rDNA loci may be reflected in the phenotypes observed.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicChromatin Remodeling and CancerFrench-language works237,207