MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986704322 · doi:10.1242/jcs.021352

Ku is involved in cell growth, DNA replication and G1-S transition

2008· article· en· W1986704322 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanouil Rampakakis, Domenic Di Paola, Maria Zannis‐Hadjopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKu80Origin recognition complexBiologyEukaryotic DNA replicationDNA replicationControl of chromosome duplicationPre-replication complexKu70DNA replication factor CDT1Replication factor CCell cycleS phaseChromatinCell biologyDNA damageDNAGeneticsDNA-binding proteinCellGeneTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ku protein (Ku70-Ku80) is involved in various genome-maintenance processes such as DNA replication and repair, telomere maintenance, and chromosomal stability. We previously found that Ku80 is implicated in the loading of members of the pre-replicative complex (pre-RC) onto replication origins. Here, we report that acute reduction of Ku80 to 10% of its normal levels leads to impaired DNA replication and activation of a replication stress checkpoint. In the absence of Ku80, decreased levels of the initiator proteins Orc1 and Orc6 as well as reduced chromatin binding of Orc1, Orc4 and Cdc45 were observed, leading to decreased origin firing, whereas Orc2 and Orc3 were unaffected. Prolonged perturbation of DNA replication caused the block of cell-cycle progression in late G1 phase with low Cdk2 activity due to increased p21 expression and decreased Cdc25A and Cdk2 levels. The data suggest the interplay between the DNA-replication and cell-cycle machineries and shed light on a new role of Ku in G1-S transition.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations51
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207