MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

End‐damage‐specific proteins facilitate recruitment or stability of X‐ray cross‐complementing protein 1 at the sites of DNA single‐strand break repair

2005· article· en· W1828848048 on OpenAlexaff
Jason L. Parsons, Irina I. Dianova, Emma Boswell, Michael Weinfeld, Grigory L. Dianov

Bibliographic record

VenueFEBS Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAP siteDNA ligaseDNA damageDNA repairDNADNA repair protein XRCC4DNA LigasesBiologyNucleotide excision repairOligonucleotideReplication protein AMolecular biologyEndonucleaseBase excision repairBiochemistryCell biologyDNA-binding proteinGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ionizing radiation, oxidative stress and endogenous DNA-damage processing can result in a variety of single-strand breaks with modified 5' and/or 3' ends. These are thought to be one of the most persistent forms of DNA damage and may threaten cell survival. This study addresses the mechanism involved in recognition and processing of DNA strand breaks containing modified 3' ends. Using a DNA-protein cross-linking assay, we followed the proteins involved in the repair of oligonucleotide duplexes containing strand breaks with a phosphate or phosphoglycolate group at the 3' end. We found that, in human whole cell extracts, end-damage-specific proteins (apurinic/apyrimidinic endonuclease 1 and polynucleotide kinase in the case of 3' ends containing phosphoglycolate and phosphate, respectively) which recognize and process 3'-end-modified DNA strand breaks are required for efficient recruitment of X-ray cross-complementing protein 1-DNA ligase IIIalpha heterodimer to the sites of DNA repair.

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)0.002
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations24
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEBS JournalSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207