MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1936998386 · doi:10.1093/genetics/158.1.177

Identification of a Mutant DNA Polymerase δ in <i>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</i> With an Antimutator Phenotype for Frameshift Mutations

2001· article· en· W1936998386 on OpenAlexaff
M. Hadjimarcou, Robert J. Kokoska, Thomas D. Petes, Linda J. Reha-Krantz

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsFrameshift mutationDNA polymeraseBiologyDNA polymerase IIProofreadingGeneticsMutagenesisPolymeraseDNA replicationDNA polymerase deltaProcessivityDNA clampDNA mismatch repairDNA polymerase IMolecular biologyDNA repairMutationDNAGenePolymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose that a beta-turn-beta structure, which plays a critical role in exonucleolytic proofreading in the bacteriophage T4 DNA polymerase, is also present in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae DNA pol delta. Site-directed mutagenesis was used to test this proposal by introducing a mutation into the yeast POL3 gene in the region that encodes the putative beta-turn-beta structure. The mutant DNA pol delta has a serine substitution in place of glycine at position 447. DNA replication fidelity of the G447S-DNA pol delta was determined in vivo by using reversion and forward assays. An antimutator phenotype for frameshift mutations in short homopolymeric tracts was observed for the G447S-DNA pol delta in the absence of postreplication mismatch repair, which was produced by inactivation of the MSH2 gene. Because the G447S substitution reduced frameshift but not base substitution mutagenesis, some aspect of DNA polymerase proofreading appears to contribute to production of frameshifts. Possible roles of DNA polymerase proofreading in frameshift mutagenesis are discussed.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations29
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207