MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987175746 · doi:10.1021/bi800211f

Use of 2-Aminopurine Fluorescence To Study the Role of the β Hairpin in the Proofreading Pathway Catalyzed by the Phage T4 and RB69 DNA Polymerases

2008· article· en· W1987175746 on OpenAlexaff
Usharani Subuddhi, Matthew Hogg, Linda J. Reha-Krantz

Bibliographic record

VenueBiochemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsDNA polymeraseKlenow fragmentDNA polymerase IIPrimer (cosmetics)ProofreadingExonucleaseCoding strandPrimasePolymeraseDNA replicationDNA clampProcessivityBiologyDNA polymerase IDNAMolecular biologyBiochemistryChemistryReverse transcriptasePolymerase chain reactionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For DNA polymerases to proofread a misincorporated nucleotide, the terminal 3-4 nucleotides of the primer strand must be separated from the template strand before being bound in the exonuclease active center. Genetic and biochemical studies of the bacteriophage T4 DNA polymerase revealed that a prominent beta-hairpin structure in the exonuclease domain is needed to efficiently form the strand-separated exonuclease complexes. We present here further mutational analysis of the loop region of the T4 DNA polymerase beta-hairpin structure, which provides additional evidence that residues in the loop, namely, Y254 and G255, are important for DNA replication fidelity. The mechanism of strand separation was probed in in vitro reactions using the fluorescence of the base analogue 2-aminopurine (2AP) and mutant RB69 DNA polymerases that have modifications to the beta hairpin, to the exonuclease active site, or to both. We propose from these studies that the beta hairpin in the exonuclease domain of the T4 and RB69 DNA polymerases functions to facilitate strand separation, but residues in the exonuclease active center are required to capture the 3' end of the primer strand following strand separation.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations31
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiochemistrySame topicDNA Repair MechanismsFrench-language works237,207