MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989856184 · doi:10.1002/bies.200900089

MutL: conducting the cell's response to mismatched and misaligned DNA

2009· review· en· W1989856184 on OpenAlex
Yaroslava Y. Polosina, Claire G. Cupples

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioEssays · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDNA Repair Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDNA mismatch repairEffectorBiologyDNA repairDNACell biologyDNA damageDNA replicationNucleotide excision repairBase excision repairBase pairSomatic hypermutationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Base pair mismatches in DNA arise from errors in DNA replication, recombination, and biochemical modification of bases. Mismatches are inherently transient. They are resolved passively by DNA replication, or actively by enzymatic removal and resynthesis of one of the bases. The first step in removal is recognition of strand discontinuity by one of the MutS proteins. Mismatches arising from errors in DNA replication are repaired in favor of the base on the template strand, but other mismatches trigger base excision or nucleotide excision repair (NER), or non-repair pathways such as hypermutation, cell cycle arrest, or apoptosis. We argue that MutL homologues play a key role in determining biologic outcome by recruiting and/or activating effector proteins in response to lesion recognition by MutS. We suggest that the process is regulated by conformational changes in MutL caused by cycles of ATP binding and hydrolysis, and by physiologic changes which influence effector availability.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.271 · 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