MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

cDNA Expression Array Analysis of DNA Repair Genes in Human Glioma Cells that Lack or Express DNA-PK<sup>1</sup>

2000· article· en· W1956381868 on OpenAlexaff
Anne M. Galloway, Joan Allalunis‐Turner

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiation Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsComplementary DNABiologyMolecular biologyGeneDNA ligaseDNADNA repairCell cultureGene expressionCellDNA damageGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

M059J cells provide the only example of DNA-PKcs (now known as PRKDC) deficiency in a human cell line. M059K cells, derived from the same tumor specimen, express PRKDC protein and activity and, together with M059J, provide a useful model in which to study the role of DNA-PK in cellular responses to DNA-damaging agents. Because these cells are of tumor origin, we used Atlas human cancer cDNA expression arrays to investigate possible differential expression of other DNA repair genes in control and irradiated samples. cDNA array results indicated differential expression of 14 genes. Northern blotting confirmed relatively greater expression of replication factor C 37-kDa subunit mRNA in M059J cells compared to M059K cells and reduced expression of DNA ligase IV compared to ligase III in both cell lines independent of irradiation. These results suggest that other DNA repair proteins are altered in these cell lines and that repair mechanisms predicted from the study of normal tissues may be fundamentally altered in human cancer cells.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations22
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiation ResearchSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207