MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977772055 · doi:10.1074/jbc.m112.410647

An Interaction between DNA Polymerase and Helicase Is Essential for the High Processivity of the Bacteriophage T7 Replisome

2012· article· en· W1977772055 on OpenAlexaff
Arkadiusz W. Kulczyk, Barak Akabayov, Seung‐Joo Lee, Mihnea Bostina, Steven A. Berkowitz, Charles C. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biological Chemistry · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsReplisomePrimaseDNA clampDNA polymeraseDNA polymerase IIProcessivityHelicaseProkaryotic DNA replicationPolymeraseBiologyDNA polymerase deltaDNA replicationCircular bacterial chromosomeMolecular biologyDNACell biologyBiophysicsBiochemistryGenePolymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synthesis of the leading DNA strand requires the coordinated activity of DNA polymerase and DNA helicase, whereas synthesis of the lagging strand involves interactions of these proteins with DNA primase. We present the first structural model of a bacteriophage T7 DNA helicase-DNA polymerase complex using a combination of small angle x-ray scattering, single-molecule, and biochemical methods. We propose that the protein-protein interface stabilizing the leading strand synthesis involves two distinct interactions: a stable binding of the helicase to the palm domain of the polymerase and an electrostatic binding of the carboxyl-terminal tail of the helicase to a basic patch on the polymerase. DNA primase facilitates binding of DNA helicase to ssDNA and contributes to formation of the DNA helicase-DNA polymerase complex by stabilizing DNA helicase.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations33
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biological ChemistrySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207