<i>In situ</i> analysis of repair processes for oxidative DNA damage in mammalian cells
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxidative DNA damage causes blocks and errors in transcription and replication, leading to cell death and genomic instability. Although repair mechanisms of the damage have been extensively analyzed in vitro, the actual in vivo repair processes remain largely unknown. Here, by irradiation with an UVA laser through a microscope lens, we have conditionally produced single-strand breaks and oxidative base damage at restricted nuclear regions of mammalian cells. We showed, in real time after irradiation by using antibodies and GFP-tagged proteins, rapid and ordered DNA repair processes of oxidative DNA damage in human cells. Furthermore, we characterized repair pathways by using repair-defective mammalian cells and found that DNA polymerase beta accumulated at single-strand breaks and oxidative base damage by means of its 31- and 8-kDa domains, respectively, and that XRCC1 is essential for both polymerase beta-dependent and proliferating cell nuclear antigen-dependent repair pathways of single-strand breaks. Thus, the repair of oxidative DNA damage is based on temporal and functional interactions among various proteins operating at the site of DNA damage in living 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it