Functional Competition between Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase and Its 24-kDa Apoptotic Fragment in DNA Repair and Transcription
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase is a 113-kDa nuclear enzyme that binds to both damaged DNA and to RNA associated with actively transcribed regions of chromatin. Binding of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase to DNA lesions activates it, catalyzing the covalent addition of multiple ADP-ribose polymers to the enzyme (automodification). During apoptosis, poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase is cleaved by caspase-3, resulting in the formation of an N-terminal 24-kDa fragment, containing the DNA binding domain, and a C-terminal 89-kDa catalytic fragment. The functional relevance of this cleavage is not well understood. We therefore prepared a recombinant 24-kDa poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase fragment and investigated the role of this fragment in DNA repair and transcription. The 24-kDa fragment retained its binding affinity for both DNA breaks and RNA. In an in vitro cell-free DNA repair assay, this fragment inhibited rejoining of DNA breaks and suppressed ADP-ribose polymer formation by competing with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in binding to DNA breaks. With regard to transcription, it has recently been demonstrated that binding of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase to transcribed RNA reduces the rate of transcript elongation and that automodification of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase bound to DNA breaks results in up-regulation of transcription. We tested the 24-kDa fragment for its ability to suppress transcript elongation, and we found that it competed against the up-regulation of transcription mediated by full-length poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase. The ability of the 24-kDa fragment to inhibit DNA repair, ADP-ribose polymer formation, and damage-dependent up-regulation of transcription may contribute to the apoptotic shift from cell survival to cell death mode.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".