MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1853628733 · doi:10.1002/prot.24349

Delineation of key XRCC4/Ligase IV interfaces for targeted disruption of non-homologous end joining DNA repair

2013· article· en· W1853628733 on OpenAlexafffund
Meghan J. McFadden, Wilson K. Y. Lee, John D. Brennan, M.S. Junop

Bibliographic record

VenueProteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsDNA ligaseHelix (gastropod)DNA repair protein XRCC4DNADNA damageUbiquitin ligaseBiophysicsCell biologyDNA repairNon-homologous end joiningBiologyChemistryBiochemistryDNA mismatch repairUbiquitinGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Efficient DNA repair mechanisms frequently limit the effectiveness of chemotherapeutic agents that act through DNA damaging mechanisms. Consequently, proteins involved in DNA repair have increasingly become attractive targets of high-throughput screening initiatives to identify modulators of these pathways. Disruption of the XRCC4-Ligase IV interaction provides a novel means to efficiently halt repair of mammalian DNA double strand break repair; however; the extreme affinity of these proteins presents a major obstacle for drug discovery. A better understanding of the interaction surfaces is needed to provide a more specific target for inhibitor studies. To clearly define key interface(s) of Ligase IV necessary for interaction with XRCC4, we developed a competitive displacement assay using ESI-MS/MS and determined the minimal inhibitory fragment of the XRCC4-interacting region (XIR) capable of disrupting a complex of XRCC4/XIR. Disruption of a single helix (helix 2) within the helix-loop-helix clamp of Ligase IV was sufficient to displace XIR from a preformed complex. Dose-dependent response curves for the disruption of the complex by either helix 2 or helix-loop-helix fragments revealed that potency of inhibition was greater for the larger helix-loop-helix peptide. Our results suggest a susceptibility to inhibition at the interface of helix 2 and future studies would benefit from targeting this surface of Ligase IV to identify modulators that disrupt its interaction with XRCC4. Furthermore, helix 1 and loop regions of the helix-loop-helix clamp provide secondary target surfaces to identify adjuvant compounds that could be used in combination to more efficiently inhibit XRCC4/Ligase IV complex formation and 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)0.000
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.219
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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProteins Structure Function and BioinformaticsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207