Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation as a DNA Damage-induced Post-translational Modification Regulating Poly(ADP-ribose) Polymerase-1-Topoisomerase I Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation is a post-translational modification that occurs immediately after exposure of cells to DNA damaging agents. In vivo, 90% of ADP-ribose polymers are attached to the automodification domain of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 (PARP-1), the main enzyme catalyzing this modification reaction. This enzyme forms complexes with transcription initiation, DNA replication, and DNA repair factors. In most known cases, the interactions occur through the automodification domain. However, functional implications of the automodification reaction on these interactions have not yet been elucidated. In the present study, we created fluorescent protein-tagged PARP-1 to study this enzyme in live cells and focused on the interaction between PARP-1 and topoisomerase I (Topo I), one of the enzymes that interacts with PARP-1 in vitro. Here, we demonstrate that PARP-1 co-localizes with Topo I throughout the cell cycle. Results from bioluminescence resonance energy transfer assays suggest that the co-localization is because of a direct protein-protein interaction. In response to DNA damage, PARP-1 de-localization and a reduction in bioluminescence resonance energy transfer signal because of the automodification reaction are observed, suggesting that the automodification reaction results in the disruption of the interaction between PARP-1 and Topo I. Because Topo I activity has been reported to be promoted by PARP-1, we then investigated the effect of the disruption of this interaction on Topo I activity, and we found that this disruption results in the reduction of Topo I activity. These results suggest that a function for the automodification reaction is to regulate the interaction between PARP-1 and Topo I, and consequently, the Topo I activity, in response to DNA damage.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".