MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985701259 · doi:10.1021/bi0480584

DNA Damage Induced Hyperphosphorylation of Replication Protein A. 1. Identification of Novel Sites of Phosphorylation in Response to DNA Damage

2005· article· en· W1985701259 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jonathan E. Nuss, Steve M. Patrick, Greg G. Oakley, Gerald M. Alter, Jacob G. Robison, Kathleen Dixon, John J. Turchi

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Cancer InstituteUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsReplication protein APhosphorylationDNA damageProtein subunitHyperphosphorylationDNA replicationReplication factor CMolecular biologyAphidicolinEukaryotic DNA replicationBiologyProtein phosphorylationDNAGel electrophoresisBiochemistryChemistryCell biologyDNA-binding proteinProtein kinase A

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Replication protein A (RPA) is the predominant eukaryotic single-stranded DNA binding protein composed of 70, 34, and 14 kDa subunits. RPA plays central roles in the processes of DNA replication, repair, and recombination, and the p34 subunit of RPA is phosphorylated in a cell-cycle-dependent fashion and is hyperphosphorylated in response to DNA damage. We have developed an in vitro procedure for the preparation of hyperphosphorylated RPA and characterized a series of novel sites of phosphorylation using a combination of in gel tryptic digestion, SDS-PAGE and HPLC, MALDI-TOF MS analysis, 2D gel electrophoresis, and phosphospecific antibodies. We have mapped five phosphorylation sites on the RPA p34 subunit and five sites of phosphorylation on the RPA p70 subunit. No modification of the 14 kDa subunit was observed. Using the procedures developed with in vitro phosphorylated RPA, we confirmed a series of phosphorylation events on RPA from HeLa cells that was hyperphosphorylated in vivo in response to the DNA damaging agents, aphidicolin and hydroxyurea.

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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations81
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207