The multi‐replication protein A (RPA) system – a new perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".