MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The multi‐replication protein A (RPA) system – a new perspective

2009· review· en· W1553730530 on OpenAlexaff
Kengo Sakaguchi, Toyotaka Ishibashi, Yukinobu Uchiyama, Kazuki Iwabata

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Journal · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReplication protein ABiologyHomologous recombinationDNA replicationProtein subunitComputational biologyFunction (biology)DNA repairDNATelomereDNA damageCell biologyGeneticsDNA-binding proteinGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Replication protein A (RPA) complex has been shown, using both in vivo and in vitro approaches, to be required for most aspects of eukaryotic DNA metabolism: replication, repair, telomere maintenance and homologous recombination. Here, we review recent data concerning the function and biological importance of the multi-RPA complex. There are distinct complexes of RPA found in the biological kingdoms, although for a long time only one type of RPA complex was believed to be present in eukaryotes. Each complex probably serves a different role. In higher plants, three distinct large and medium subunits are present, but only one species of the smallest subunit. Each of these protein subunits forms stable complexes with their respective partners. They are paralogs as complex. Humans possess two paralogs and one analog of RPA. The multi-RPA system can be regarded as universal in eukaryotes. Among eukaryotic kingdoms, paralogs, orthologs, analogs and heterologs of many DNA synthesis-related factors, including RPA, are ubiquitous. Convergent evolution seems to be ubiquitous in these processes. Using recent findings, we review the composition and biological functions of RPA complexes.

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 score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations60
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS JournalSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207