Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

0 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Comparison of Leu3 binding in vitro and in vivo

ABSTRACT: 1. Comparison of Leu3 binding in vitro and in vivo 2. comparison of nucleosome occupancy between with Leu3-binding and without Leu3-binding This SuperSeries is composed of the SubSeries listed below.

ORGANISM(S): Saccharomyces cerevisiae

PROVIDER: GSE5785 | GEO | 2006/09/08

SECONDARY ACCESSION(S): PRJNA97139

REPOSITORIES: GEO

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Dataset's files

Source:

			Action	DRS
		Other

Items per page:

1 - 1 of 1

Similar Datasets

anti-H3 Chip-chip in Leu3overexpress or Leu3AD starins

Project description:To compare nucleosome distribution between Leu3-overexpressing and Leu3-binding deficient yeast strains Keywords: ChIP-chip

2006-09-08 | GSE5782 | GEO

Coupling p53 binding and nucleosome occupancy measurements at p53 binding sites

2010-08-09 | GSE22783 | GEO

DIP-chip: Rapid and accurate determination of DNA-binding specificity

Project description:Validation of DNA ImmunoPrecipitation with microarray analysis (DIP-chip) technique using the Leu3 DNA binding domain. Keywords: DIP-chip, Leu3

2006-10-13 | GSE6016 | GEO

Coupling p53 binding and nucleosome occupancy measurements at p53 binding sites

Project description:We were interested to explain why p53 binds some high affinity sites in contrast to other high affinity sites that are not bound by p53. p53 binding was measured using p53 ChIP-CHIP and in parallel nucleosome occupancy was measured on these same sites Comparison between p53 binding and nucleosome occupancy at p53 predicted binding sites ChIP-CHIP of p53 from MCF7EcoR under Basal conditions and MCF7EcoR treated with NCS (Activated) and Mononucleosomal extraction from MCF7sip53, MCF7EcoR under Basal conditions and MCF7EcoR treated with NCS (Activated) Expression analysis of MCF7sip53 and MCF7EcoR treated with NCS (Activated)

2010-08-09 | E-GEOD-22783 | biostudies-arrayexpress

E2F in vivo binding specificity: comparison of consensus vs. non-consensus binding sites

Project description:E2F in vivo binding specificity: comparison of consensus vs. non-consensus binding sites

| PRJNA113485 | ENA

CTCF binding landscape is established by the epigenetic status of the nucleosome, well-positioned relative to CTCF motif orientation

Project description:CTCF binding sites serve as anchors for the 3D chromatin architecture in vertebrates. The functionality of these anchors is influenced by the residence time of CTCF on chromatin, which is determined by its binding affinity and its interactions with nucleosomes and other chromatin-associated factors. In this study, we demonstrate that CTCF occupancy is driven by CTCF motifs strategically positioned at the entry sites of well-positioned nucleosome, such that, upon binding, the N-terminus of CTCF is oriented towards the nucleosome. We refer to this nucleosome as the CTCF priming nucleosome (CpN). CTCF recognizes its binding sites as long as they are not methylated. It can then displace the CpN, provided the nucleosome is not marked by CpG methylation or repressive histone modifications. Under these permissive conditions, the N-terminus of CTCF recruits SMARCA5 to reposition the CpN downstream, thereby creating nucleosome-free regions that enhance CTCF occupancy and cohesin stalling. In contrast, when CpNs carry repressive epigenetic marks, CTCF binding is transient, without nucleosome displacement or chromatin opening. In such cases, cohesin is not effectively retained at CTCF binding sites. We propose that the epigenetic status of CpNs governs cell-specific CTCF binding patterns, ensuring the maintenance of chromatin architecture throughout the cell cycle.

2024-09-24 | GSE277826 | GEO

Project description:Comparison of Leu3 binding in vitro and in vivo

| PRJNA97139 | ENA

Nucleosome positioning in A549 cells before/after NME2 induction

Project description:Previous studies have analyzed patterns of transcription, transcription factor (TF) binding or mapped nucleosome occupancy across the genome. These suggest that the three aspects are genetically connected but the cause and effect relationships are still unknown. For example, physiologic TF binding studies involve many TFs, consequently, it is difficult to assign nucleosome reorganization to the binding site occupancy of any particular TF. Therefore, several aspects remain unclear: does TF binding influence nucleosome (re)organizations locally (in close vicinity of their binding sites) or impact the chromatin landscape at a more global level; are all or only a fraction of TF binding a result of reorganization in nucleosome occupancy; finally, do all TF binding and associated nucleosome occupancy changes result in altered gene expression? With these in mind, we sought to study a single TF that induces physiological changes, and following characterization of the two states (before and after induction of the TF) we determined: (a) genomic binding sites of the TF, (b) promoter nucleosome occupancy and (c) transcriptome profiles, independently in both conditions. Results demonstrate that TF binding influences expression of the target gene only when it is coupled to nucleosome repositioning at or close to its binding site, and not when transcription factor binding occurs without local associated nucleosome reorganization.

2014-08-04 | GSE40363 | GEO

Nucleosome positioning in A549 cells before/after NME2 induction

2014-08-04 | E-GEOD-40363 | biostudies-arrayexpress

Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Project description:Nucleosome occupancy

| PRJNA104259 | ENA