Nucleotide excision repair and photolyase repair of UV photoproducts in nucleosomes: assessing the existence of nucleosome and non-nucleosome rDNA chromatin in vivoThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled 29th Annual International Asilomar Chromatin and Chromosomes Conference, and has undergone the Journal’s usual peer review process.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genome is organized into nuclear domains, which create microenvironments that favor distinct chromatin structures and functions (e.g., highly repetitive sequences, centromeres, telomeres, noncoding sequences, inactive genes, RNA polymerase II and III transcribed genes, and the nucleolus). Correlations have been drawn between gene silencing and proximity to a heterochromatic compartment. At the other end of the scale are ribosomal genes, which are transcribed at a very high rate by RNA polymerase I (~60% of total transcription), have a loose chromatin structure, and are clustered in the nucleolus. The rDNA sequences have 2 distinct structures: active rRNA genes, which have no nucleosomes; and inactive rRNA genes, which have nucleosomes. Like DNA transcription and replication, DNA repair is modulated by the structure of chromatin, and the kinetics of DNA repair vary among the nuclear domains. Although research on DNA repair in all chromosomal contexts is important to understand the mechanisms of genome maintenance, this review focuses on nucleotide excision repair and photolyase repair of UV photoproducts in the first-order packing of DNA in chromatin: the nucleosome. In addition, it summarizes the studies that have demonstrated the existence of the 2 rDNA chromatins, and the way this feature of the rDNA locus allows for direct comparison of DNA repair in 2 very different structures: nucleosome and non-nucleosome DNA.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".