MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distinct parts of minichromosome maintenance protein 2 associate with histone H3/H4 and RNA polymerase II holoenzyme

2002· article· en· W1524946018 on OpenAlexaff
Linda Holland, Michael Downey, Xiaomin Song, Laura D. Gauthier, Patricia Bell‐Rogers, Krassimir Yankulov

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Biochemistry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinichromosomeMinichromosome maintenanceRNA polymerase IIHistone H3PolymeraseCell biologyHistoneBiologyChemistryGeneticsChromatinGeneGene expressionDNA replicationEukaryotic DNA replication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Minichromosome maintenance (MCM) proteins are part of the replication licensing factor (RLF-M), which limits the initiation of DNA replication to once per cell cycle. We have previously reported that higher order complexes of mammalian pol II and general pol II transcription factors, referred to as pol II holoenzyme, also contain MCM proteins. In the present study we have analyzed in detail the interaction between MCM2 and pol II holoenzyme. N- and C- terminal deletions were introduced into epitope-tagged MCM2 and the truncated proteins were transiently expressed in 293 cells. Affinity chromatography was used to purify RNA pol II holoenzyme and histone binding MCM complexes. We found that amino acids 168-230 of MCM2 are required for its binding to pol II holoenzyme in vivo. We also showed that bacterially expressed amino acids 169-212 of MCM2 associate with pol II and several general transcription factors in vitro. Point mutations within the 169-212 domain of MCM2 disrupted its interaction with pol II holoenzyme both in vitro and in vivo. This region is distinct from the previously characterized histone H3 binding domain of MCM2.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations34
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of BiochemistrySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207